The Virtue Of Self Interest?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » The Virtue Of Self Interest?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

apehead
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 08:40 am
Good Morning,

After reading the thread "What do you want to be when you grow up", I could not help but take issue with some of the commentary. Specifically, a short exchange between Soul Brother and Hexhammer:

HexHammer;164362 wrote:
- I want to make school education better
- I want to make society better
- I want to make the world free of polution
- I want to make the deserts green ..if that fails make cooling stations across the deserts
- I wish to get a buisness empire great enough to gain political will, to change things
- invent a machine generating cheap electricity for 3rd world countries

Soul Brother;169902 wrote:
Global consumer capitalism is what makes all of the above impossible.


HexHammer;169916 wrote:
Yes, you are very right my friend, and I can only say to all others...

Too many put themselves before others. Sees only their own and sometimes the needs of their closetest, before those who really are in need. ...


Fundamentally, I am in Philosophical opposition to these positions for two reasons

First, my stance that on objectivity and subjectivity, covered here (pgs. 14 - 24), would necessitate altering some of the values loaded terms used in the above, such as "better", "pollution", "cheap", "right" and "really in need". Let's apply those modifications to the above statement:

In re Hexhammer:
I want to make school education more like how I want it to be
- I want to make society more like how I want it to be
- I want to make the world free of certain matter in places that I find undesirable for it to be
- I want to make the deserts green ..if that fails make cooling stations across the deserts
- I wish to get a buisness empire great enough to gain political will, to change things
- invent a machine generating electricity that I feel is appropriately priced for 3rd world

In re Soulbrother:
I think that Global consumer capitalism is what makes all of the above impossible.

In re Hexhammer
Yes, I am strongly in agreement my friend, and I can only say to all others...

I feel that too many put themselves before others. I think they see only their own and sometimes the desires of their closest, before those who I think are more deserving of having their desires fufilled.

See how the tone and overall feel of the conversation has changed? Now these lofty, idealistic, altruistic sounding goals read a bit more like they actually are. They are simply manifestations of a selfish desire to change the whole world to be more in line with your personal aesthetics and values. To increase your personal enjoyment of the world; that is the underlying motive behind the sham of "altruism".
This philosophical underpinning helps to segue into my next point of contention:

In re Soulbrother:
Global consumer capitalism is what makes all of the above impossible.

:nonooo:

Let's break that down a bit:

"Global - pertaining to the whole world; worldwide; universal"

"Consumer - a person or organization that uses a commodity or service. "

"Capitalism - an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."

So, the reason all of hexhammer's goals are not realized is due to the world's population using commodities and services within a system of exchange, production, and investment in which individuals have the ability to decide who, what, where, when, why, and how they use their resources? I'm not sure I see how that follows.

I imagine it probably has to do with some held notion of yours that capitalism exploits resources, and has a selfish motivation, rather than altruistic.

First, as an aside, it seems to me that you are confusing the notion of Capitalism with Corporatism, or Crony Capitalism, which are products of the State, not of Capitalism itself.

Of course, if you have followed this post so far, you will know that I think that the motivation for any action is always the same: self interest. So what, then, is the difference between your goals and the goals of a capitalist? Differing aesthetics, that is all.

Both the goals of the egalitarian collectivist, and of the capitalist require the exploitation of some resource to achieve their respective ends. You may find the goal of the egalitarian collectivist more appealing, but it remains economic fact that collectivist means are doomed to fail in achieving their desired ends (Mises; Socialism)

Ironically, it is unhindered, voluntary, "selfish", individual exchange has the side effect of producing more capital, which then increases the standard of living for all parties involved. If you don't trust me, let the (apologetically trivial, but the best I could think up on the fly) results speak for themselves:

1975 Trabant

1975 VW Rabbit

Now, some questions:

Since it seems that all actions are fundamentally in self interest, why should some individuals' goals take precedence over others?

Why is voluntary exchange preventing your aesthetic values based goals from being realized? What would you advocate instead?

Sorry to fly off the handle, but there is only so much a man can take...:brickwall:
 
Resha Caner
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 11:39 am
@apehead,
apehead;172965 wrote:
that is the underlying motive behind the sham of "altruism".


Altruism is not a sham. There was a time when I resisted the idea that everything everybody does is motivated by self-interest. Maybe some, I thought, but not all. My views have changed.

I realized my objection is that I thought of self-interest as bad and putting the self aside for others as good. It's not that simple. I'm willing to accept that at the root of every individual, they are acting for self-interest. BUT, one factor that motivates the self is loneliness (and other similar motivations). Loneliness causes us to ask others for companionship. Those others won't give it without trust and commitment. So, in a sense, we bind with other people. Once bound to them, our "self-interest" is no longer toward the individual, but toward the group to which we are bound. It is out of this that altruism grows.

It is why people shy away from those whose self-interest is truly motivated by individual needs only. It demonstrates a lack of ability to provide companionship, to support and promote the group. In fact, such extreme individualism is often harmful.

This is all speaking from the head. Unless you've been a spouse, parent, brother/sister, or son/daughter - not in the physical sense, but in the emotional sense - you probably won't understand what I'm saying.

apehead;172965 wrote:
Since it seems that all actions are fundamentally in self interest, why should some individuals' goals take precedence over others?


Now you're talking about authority. If you're not living in a society, you can ask that question. I doubt few people in this forum are truly independent (though they may like to think they are), so it seems like a somewhat arrogant question: why am I not allowed to take from society without giving back to it?
 
apehead
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 12:30 pm
@Resha Caner,
Resha Caner;172991 wrote:
Altruism is not a sham.

"Altruism - the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism)."

"Egoism - the habit of valuing everything only in reference to one's personal interest; selfishness (opposed to altruism)."

Resha Caner;172991 wrote:
There was a time when I resisted the idea that everything everybody does is motivated by self-interest. Maybe some, I thought, but not all. My views have changed.

I realized my objection is that I thought of self-interest as bad and putting the self aside for others as good. It's not that simple. I'm willing to accept that at the root of every individual, they are acting for self-interest.

So we agree that every action an individual executes is fundamentally one of self interest. Wouldn't this make "Altruism", by definition, a meaningless term, while simultaneously making Egoism ubiquitous?

Resha Caner;172991 wrote:
BUT, one factor that motivates the self is loneliness (and other similar motivations). Loneliness causes us to ask others for companionship. Those others won't give it without trust and commitment. So, in a sense, we bind with other people. Once bound to them, our "self-interest" is no longer toward the individual, but toward the group to which we are bound. It is out of this that altruism grows.


The group is a fabrication of the individuals which compose it. A "spook" as Stirner would say. In the end, you are still left with individuals acting in their interests. It just so happens that their goals are similar or complementary enough to accomodate cooperation. No altruism, as far as I understand the scenario you've presented.

Resha Caner;172991 wrote:
It is why people shy away from those whose self-interest is truly motivated by individual needs only. It demonstrates a lack of ability to provide companionship, to support and promote the group. In fact, such extreme individualism is often harmful.


This passage is loaded with your personal values statements. Not all people shy away from the self-centered. How is extreme individualism harmful? To who? Why?

Resha Caner;172991 wrote:
This is all speaking from the head. Unless you've been a spouse, parent, brother/sister, or son/daughter - not in the physical sense, but in the emotional sense - you probably won't understand what I'm saying.


I understand what you are saying perfectly, although I disagree with it. To love satisfies and pleases your psychic needs, does it not? If it didn't, do you think you would still love?



Resha Caner;172991 wrote:
Now you're talking about authority. If you're not living in a society, you can ask that question. I doubt few people in this forum are truly independent (though they may like to think they are), so it seems like a somewhat arrogant question: why am I not allowed to take from society without giving back to it?


Well despite the conflict with your aesthetic and moral values, why aren't I allowed? Also, as I have mentioned before, an unintended consequence of pursuing selfish goals is sometimes to improve the living conditions of others, as in the Capitalism example.

This quote seems appropriate:

"Man, your head is haunted; you have wheels in your head! You imagine great things, and depict to yourself a whole world of gods that has an existence for you, a spirit-realm to which you suppose yourself to be called, an ideal that beckons to you. You have a fixed idea! Do not think that I am jesting or speaking figuratively when I regard those persons who cling to the Higher, and (because the vast majority belongs under this head) almost the whole world of men, as veritable fools, fools in a madhouse. What is it, then, that is called a "fixed idea"? An idea that has subjected the man to itself. When you recognize, with regard to such a fixed idea, that it is a folly, you shut its slave up in an asylum. And is the truth of the faith, say, which we are not to doubt; the majesty of (e. g.) the people, which we are not to strike at (he who does is guilty of -- lese-majesty); virtue, against which the censor is not to let a word pass, that morality may be kept pure; -- are these not "fixed ideas"? Is not all the stupid chatter of (e. g.) most of our newspapers the babble of fools who suffer from the fixed idea of morality, legality, Christianity, etc., and only seem to go about free because the madhouse in which they walk takes in so broad a space?" - Max Stirner
 
Resha Caner
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 03:12 pm
@apehead,
apehead;173005 wrote:
So we agree that every action an individual executes is fundamentally one of self interest. Wouldn't this make "Altruism", by definition, a meaningless term, while simultaneously making Egoism ubiquitous?


Only if you insist on dealing in abolutes. An absolute altruism would be the perfect opposite of an absolute egoism, but there is much territory in between which is a mixture of both. Personally, I don't want to get into that useless game. I can ask silly questions like: how do you know you're acting in your own self interest? Maybe you've been tricked to act in the interest of others and you only think it's your own self interest. And you can explain to me that it doesn't matter if you've been tricked, that you still think it is self interest and that is all that matters.

The whole time what has not been addressed is the common understanding of the word "altruism", and hence nothing is accomplished. The word requires judgement - I don't try to avoid that necessity. Nor do I try to seize control of words and redefine them in absolute terms that defy common understanding.

apehead;173005 wrote:
The group is a fabrication of the individuals which compose it. A "spook" as Stirner would say.


And that isn't a value statement? So you can access some omnipotent power and prove to me that all groups that ever were or ever will be fit that conclusion?

apehead;173005 wrote:
This passage is loaded with your personal values statements. Not all people shy away from the self-centered. How is extreme individualism harmful? To who? Why?


I could give the same answer I did above. But just a little imagination will provide an example. There are 2 people on an island and one banana. One kills the other so he can satisfy his self-interest of eating the banana. That is harmful.

Is that a value judgement on my part - that one killing another is harmful? Yes it is. Why is that value judgement wrong? What judgement have you used to say that removing all value judgements would be superior to leaving them in place? If you can't see the circularity of such things, I don't think I can lead you to it.

The point is this: yes, I make value judgements and I don't try to pretend that I'm not. IMO, the rational person is the one who admits nothing can be done without a judgement of some form. It is not rational to think otherwise.

apehead;173005 wrote:
Well despite the conflict with your aesthetic and moral values, why aren't I allowed?


I don't see a need to provide any other reason. If you and I are going to live in the same society, you will have to deal with my values, just as I must deal with yours. If there is someone to whom that is not acceptable, they can make the choice to leave - but they should not stay, demanding satisfaction while refusing to obey. That is why we have jails - to remove people who take that position.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 06:38 pm
@apehead,
apehead
I must ask you to change my name of your translated quotes, I do not like being misquoted and having words put in my mouth.

Your tanslation is way off of my intend, and does not resemble me at all.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 08:22 pm
@apehead,
The "self" is not easily defined. Self-interest may include an intense love for others. Here's a tricky question. Is it selfish to make others happy, if making them happy makes you happy? If this is also "selfish," then the word may have too wide a meaning to be of much use.

recon
 
deepthot
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 01:31 am
@apehead,
Greetings, Apehead:

This topic is discussed on pages 31-34 of the paper, a link to which is below in the signaiture.
Apehead you act as if you haven't read it, and nor have you studied Chapters 9 and 10 of ETHICS: A College Course, where the theme of this thread is extensively analyzed in a detailed argument.

You seem to be conflating "selfishness" with "self-interest." I hope I am wrong about your making this egregious mistake. They are two different concepts. The College Text manual explains how.they differ.

Some people live spontaneously and do not calculate: what's in it for me? Instead - if they ask anything - they ask: What's in it for us? ...they talk as if they care for others, and they "walk the talk." (Those who cannot feel caring toward others are known as 'psychopaths.')

An axiological analysis of some of the terms used in the o.p[. defines three terms, these ways of relating to onself and to others, as follows:

S: Conformity

E: Individualism

I: Individuality.

Becasue of the measurement of the value dimensions we see that it is uncountably better to have individuality than it is to be "a rugged individual," so-called.
Upon investigation it turns out that every "self-made man" had enormous help from public utilities;, from government agencies; and (sometimes hidden) subsidies from the public till;, and from mentors; and/or from resources which society graciously provided them.
"Better" means: richer in meaning; more valuable. "Value " is very-carefully defined, with precision, in Chapter 2 of the College Course manual. A link to that is offered in the Preface of the essay below, entitled Ethical Adventures. "Valuing" and "liking" are two different concepts and do not necessarily correlate. Surely you're notignorant of all this?? Say "Not so !"
 
Soul Brother
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 02:23 am
@apehead,
Hello apehead. Sorry I could not tend to this earlier, I had seen this post just prior to logging out on my last visit but I had not the time to reply. I must say that I agree on most of your points.

apehead;172965 wrote:
So, the reason all of hexhammer's goals are not realized is due to the world's population using commodities and services within a system of exchange, production, and investment in which individuals have the ability to decide who, what, where, when, why, and how they use their resources? I'm not sure I see how that follows.


The error here and the reason as to why I made this point in the original thread is that these commodities/money, is NOT as you suggested in the hands of the world's population, but only the minority which is the giant corporations. I do not think I should need to outline the obvious damaging problems of this but I will make a quick point of it anyway. As I am sure you are well aware, these corporations have vast amounts of money, there are literally countless men who have billions of dollars, there are many state of affairs around the world that could benefit from such money, e.g there are brothers in the same planet, right next door in third world countries, children are literally starving to death, but in these mens opinions the money is better made use of sitting in the bank.

apehead;172965 wrote:
Of course, if you have followed this post so far, you will know that I think that the motivation for any action is always the same: self interest. So what, then, is the difference between your goals and the goals of a capitalist? Differing aesthetics, that is all.


So you see while these objective and logical philosophies are correct and would apply great to robots, we are humans, as such, we apply and hold great values to what is also my answer to most of your argument, and that is ethics and morals.

Have a great day.

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 06:32 PM ----------

Deepthot has outlined exactly my point as the problem with your argument just as I was typing.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 12:18 pm
@deepthot,
deepthot;173306 wrote:

You seem to be conflating "selfishness" with "self-interest." I hope I am wrong about your making this egregious mistake. They are two different concepts. The College Text manual explains how.they differ.

In my last post (which you should quote if you're going to respond to, to make it clear who you are accusing of the possibility of an "egregious mistake,") I was trying to cut to the heart of the matter. If you think these words "self-interest" and "selfishness" have exact meanings, you may be making an egregious mistake. "Self" is one of the trickiest concepts in philosophy, and unfortunately one of the least considered.

Of course I agree with your values generally. It's your approach that I have some reservations about. No offense meant.

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 01:23 PM ----------

deepthot;173306 wrote:

Upon investigation it turns out that every "self-made man" had enormous help from public utilities;, from government agencies; and (sometimes hidden) subsidies from the public till;, and from mentors; and/or from resources which society graciously provided them.
"Better" means: richer in meaning; more valuable. "Value " is very-carefully defined, with precision, in Chapter 2 of the College Course manual. A link to that is offered in the Preface of the essay below, entitled Ethical Adventures. "Valuing" and "liking" are two different concepts and do not necessarily correlate. Surely you're notignorant of all this?? Say "Not so !"


Yes, all of this I am more than a little aware of. Have you read the TLP? Your ideas are good, but they are not dialectically impregnable. You are still relying on slippery abstractions. Unless a reader has had certain emotional experiences, they may or may not convince.

As long as ethics is trapped in the realm of abstraction, it's not the real thing. Life is justified by feeling. Relationships are justified by feeling. I have read some of your book, and there are many good ideas in it. But these ideas are not, in my mind, an obvious refutation of opposing ideas. This is why the TLP is valuable. It's arguments are stronger. It cuts to the root. It destroys all the confusions that keep ethics in the realm of abstraction.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 02:35 am
@apehead,
Hello my friend, Reconstructo,

It was indeed Apehead that I was addressing in my recent post. Sorry for any misunderstanding. I failed to make myself clear.

I respect your comments very, very much. You are right about those abstractions. What would be the alternative? Do you want to see a tract full of logic symbols such as the treatment Nicholas Rescher did on the concept "preference"?

And as to the Tractatus by Ludwig Wittgenstein, is it 'dialectically impregnable'? What piece of writing is?

He adores common usage of language. I admire the Principia Mathematica by Russell & Whitehead. My own scribbling is a compromise. As I say in the Adventures essay, the theory is at this time rudimentary. Yet if it were more advanced it would appeal only to geeks. The 'persons in the street' wouldn't grasp a word of it: they would be 'truned off' to it. I have not set out to present opposition and then show how clever I am by refuting it. Yet it can't be denied that most of what I do is philosophy ...not of Dr. Wittgenstein's quality, true. But I am confused by his writing and do not know where he really stands on the issues. Perhaps you can clear it up for me. What, in essence, is his ehics?


Advanced science is saturated with controversy, as witness all the various and diverse schools of Darwinism. I am keenly aware of that.

It is easy for critics to knock one's creative efforts. I encourage all my readers to be constructive, to "compose" value by building: by making suggestions as to how to improve the meager skeleton of a theory. This entails getting steeped in Formal Axiology, and its calculus, Training courses in it are offered at the Annual Conference of the Hartman Institute, held in Knoxville.

A value-centered life would encourage everyone to ask of every situation: How can I add value to this?

Thanks, Reconstructo, for agreeing with my values. You are kind to give this feedback.



To everyone in general:
As to everything I say, and have said, this applies: If the suit doesn't fit --- don't wear it. Do not take any of it personally (when it really doesn't apply to oneself.)
 
apehead
 
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 06:35 am
@Resha Caner,
Firstly, I'd like to apologize for inappropriately using quotes in my initial post. I wasn't intentionally trying to make it seem like that's what the "quotees" actually said, I maintained the format to ease confusion.

Resha Caner;173060 wrote:
Is that a value judgement on my part - that one killing another is harmful? Yes it is. Why is that value judgement wrong? What judgement have you used to say that removing all value judgements would be superior to leaving them in place? If you can't see the circularity of such things, I don't think I can lead you to it.

The point is this: yes, I make value judgements and I don't try to pretend that I'm not. IMO, the rational person is the one who admits nothing can be done without a judgement of some form. It is not rational to think otherwise.


Of course, we must make faith based judgments in our day to day lives, I am simply pointing out what they are.


Resha Caner;173060 wrote:
I don't see a need to provide any other reason. If you and I are going to live in the same society, you will have to deal with my values, just as I must deal with yours. If there is someone to whom that is not acceptable, they can make the choice to leave - but they should not stay, demanding satisfaction while refusing to obey. That is why we have jails - to remove people who take that position.

I don't understand. Why is a person with values set "A" able to imprison or banish person with values set "B"?

---------- Post added 06-07-2010 at 08:39 AM ----------

Reconstructo;173203 wrote:
The "self" is not easily defined. Self-interest may include an intense love for others. Here's a tricky question. Is it selfish to make others happy, if making them happy makes you happy? If this is also "selfish," then the word may have too wide a meaning to be of much use.

recon


That is ultimately my point. I feel it is a false dichotomy to lump some actions as pejoratively "selfish", while others are acclaimed as "unselfish". Although it seems that I might not be using these words in the spirit of their "commonly understood" meanings, instead opting for the "actual definition".

---------- Post added 06-07-2010 at 08:55 AM ----------

deepthot;173306 wrote:
You seem to be conflating "selfishness" with "self-interest." I hope I am wrong about your making this egregious mistake. They are two different concepts. The College Text manual explains how.they differ.


"Selfish - devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others."

"Self-Interest - regard for one's own interest or advantage, esp. with disregard for others."

These were the definitions I am working off of.



deepthot;173306 wrote:
Some people live spontaneously and do not calculate: what's in it for me? Instead - if they ask anything - they ask: What's in it for us? ...they talk as if they care for others, and they "walk the talk." (Those who cannot feel caring toward others are known as 'psychopaths.')


In any event, they are still acting to satisfy themselves. Have you ever heard some local news hero saying something to the effect of "I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I didn't try to help"? They have made the choice that risking their health or safety was less important than the psychic baggage they would have to carry around if they did nothing. They still wanted to be most satisfied.

deepthot;173306 wrote:
Upon investigation it turns out that every "self-made man" had enormous help from public utilities;, from government agencies; and (sometimes hidden) subsidies from the public till;, and from mentors; and/or from resources which society graciously provided them.


Good for them. Take advantage of the saps for your benefit! Selfishness in action!

deepthot;173306 wrote:
"Better" means: richer in meaning; more valuable. "Value " is very-carefully defined, with precision, in Chapter 2 of the College Course manual. A link to that is offered in the Preface of the essay below, entitled Ethical Adventures. "Valuing" and "liking" are two different concepts and do not necessarily correlate. Surely you're notignorant of all this?? Say "Not so !"


I don't remember implying that they were the same. Although I'm afraid I am ignorant of your particular "Ethics Manual", I've come across another one called "The Bible", and it wasn't all that convincing.:whistling:

---------- Post added 06-07-2010 at 09:03 AM ----------

Soul Brother;173310 wrote:
Hello apehead. I must say that I agree on most of your points.


Hello, Soul Brother. Glad to hear it.

Soul Brother;173310 wrote:
The error here and the reason as to why I made this point in the original thread is that these commodities/money, is NOT as you suggested in the hands of the world's population, but only the minority which is the giant corporations.

Why?
Soul Brother;173310 wrote:
I do not think I should need to outline the obvious damaging problems of this but I will make a quick point of it anyway. As I am sure you are well aware, these corporations have vast amounts of money, there are literally countless men who have billions of dollars, there are many state of affairs around the world that could benefit from such money, e.g there are brothers in the same planet, right next door in third world countries, children are literally starving to death, but in these mens opinions the money is better made use of sitting in the bank.


How would you suggest we take the money? Then how would we re-distribute it?


Soul Brother;173310 wrote:
So you see while these objective and logical philosophies are correct and would apply great to robots, we are humans, as such, we apply and hold great values to what is also my answer to most of your argument, and that is ethics and morals.


I'm not saying I disagree to holding values, I'd just like to point out that values are merely statements of preference. As such, I am attempting to understand how and why some are comfortable attempting to impress those values upon others.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 07:37 am
@apehead,
apehead

I don't quite understand anything that you write. You wants tp see what is not.

If I give money to a beggar knowingly that I never see him again, where lies my selfinterest?

If I provide a machine that use 1:100th energy of current electric generating machines, that 3rd world countries can use, and I have absolutely no gain hereof ..where lies my gain ..where is my self interest?

You accuse me of such selfness, with such unprofound harsh and unforgiving words, instead of jumping to conclusions, you should instead ask and gain knowledge, without causing such stirr.
 
apehead
 
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 08:39 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;174195 wrote:
If I give money to a beggar knowingly that I never see him again, where lies my selfinterest?


That's up to you. Was philanthropy on your daily checklist? Does it just make you feel good? Is it part of your religion to tithe? I can't answer why you acted, but you must believe said action advanced you towards your goals(whatever they may be), otherwise you would not have acted.

HexHammer;174195 wrote:
If I provide a machine that use 1:100th energy of current electric generating machines, that 3rd world countries can use, and I have absolutely no gain hereof ..where lies my gain ..where is my self interest?


That action would satisfy one of your goals, would it not?

HexHammer;174195 wrote:
You accuse me of such selfness, with such unprofound harsh and unforgiving words, instead of jumping to conclusions, you should instead ask and gain knowledge, without causing such stirr.


I'm sorry if you consider my words harsh and unforgiving, I am merely pointing out the inhierent hypocrisy in altruism, and the sense of righteousness that may accompany such "altruistic" actions. As for your advice, it is another example of values loaded, externally applied normative. To me, it reads something like this:

"I want you ask and gain knowledge, without causing stir."

And my response is,

"Why shouldn't I question directives?"
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 09:01 am
@apehead,
apehead;174212 wrote:
That's up to you. Was philanthropy on your daily checklist? Does it just make you feel good? Is it part of your religion to tithe? I can't answer why you acted, but you must believe said action advanced you towards your goals(whatever they may be), otherwise you would not have acted.
I act upon logic, if a person is drowning, I would swim out and help, or trhow a rope ..or whatever, it satisfy nothing, it has no deeper motivation. If I wouldn't react I would be psycotic and without any empathy.

apehead;174212 wrote:
That action would satisfy one of your goals, would it not?
..and just what goal should that be? If you have the guts to accuse me, you should be able to explain youself, which you can't. You can only blame, which anyone can do, I begin to see this as harrasment.

apehead;174212 wrote:
I'm sorry if you consider my words harsh and unforgiving, I am merely pointing out the inhierent hypocrisy in altruism, and the sense of righteousness that may accompany such "altruistic" actions. As for your advice, it is another example of values loaded, externally applied normative. To me, it reads something like this:

"I want you ask and gain knowledge, without causing stir."

And my response is,

"Why shouldn't I question directives?"
If you can't prove your claim, but only smere me with your empty accusations, then don't, it leads to no good. On the other hand it seems you only attack me with a great selfinterest in feeling selfrighterous.

In psycology, there's this concept of skitzophrenia, of "seeing" things there are not, I find it being the case of your accusations, wanting to see "self interest" when there are indeed no self interest, because my intend lies out of your "scope of plausible reasoning".
 
apehead
 
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 09:32 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;174217 wrote:
I act upon logic, if a person is drowning, I would swim out and help, or trhow a rope ..or whatever, it satisfy nothing, it has no deeper motivation. If I wouldn't react I would be psycotic and without any empathy.


I'm not quite sure how this action is automatically logical. What if your goal was to stay alive at all costs? Then it would be quite illogical to risk your life to save another. Logic has to be considered in the context of your ends. When you act in the manner you described above, you are attempting to satisfy a goal. Perhaps your goal is to "save everyone you see in trouble", or maybe "be a good person", or "avoid the feeling of guilt I would experience if I did not help", etc. In any event you act in a way that serves your desires, which is in your self interest.

HexHammer;174217 wrote:
..and just what goal should that be? If you have the guts to accuse me, you should be able to explain youself, which you can't. You can only blame, which anyone can do, I begin to see this as harrasment.


I can't tell you what you goals "should be". Accuse you of what, self-interest? I'm saying that all acting individuals are, fundamentally, exclusively self-interested. Don't think I am specifically picking on you.

HexHammer;174217 wrote:
If you can't prove your claim, but only smere me with your empty accusations, then don't, it leads to no good. On the other hand it seems you only attack me with a great selfinterest in feeling selfrighterous.


What is there to prove? All acting individuals do so out of self-interest. The burden of proof is on you to provide an example which refutes this claim. I think I have given enough evidence to give my position legitimacy.

HexHammer;174217 wrote:
In psycology, there's this concept of skitzophrenia, of "seeing" things there are not, I find it being the case of your accusations, wanting to see "self interest" when there are indeed no self interest, because my intend lies out of your "scope of plausible reasoning".


It's funny you mention that, since I find schizophrenia a rather good example of how our perception can decieve us. In my opinion the only reason those people are in the institutions, and we are out here, is that we were fortunate enough to observe the same intrasubjective phenomena that the majority experiences. Again, you seem to treat the intrasubjective as the objective, which is what I am trying to elucidate.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 04:02 pm
@apehead,
I agree, we humans are selfish. I think we transform this selfishness in various ways. To give to charity out of vanity or guilt is one thing, and to give from a real generosity of the heart is entirely something else. If virtue isn't its own reward, I can't personally get behind it. Self-sacrifice is something to be suspicious of, generally. Of course the best human relationships include a certain leaning-in in regards to the other. But this pays itself back with interest. I think that symbiotic relationships are the goal. Those who don't love themselves don't love others either. That's an opinion.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 01:59 am
@apehead,
apehead;174175 wrote:
--
That is ultimately my point. I feel it is a false dichotomy to lump some actions as pejoratively "selfish", while others are acclaimed as "unselfish". Although it seems that I might not be using these words in the spirit of their "commonly understood" meanings, instead opting for the "actual definition".------ Post added 06-07-2010 at 08:55 AM ----------
"Selfish - devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others."

"Self-Interest - regard for one's own interest or advantage, esp. with disregard for others."

These were the definitions I am working off of..


In making a philosophical analysis with a view to clarify matters, we can disregard the "especially part of your so-call "actual" definition. [It is wise on your part to put that word "actual" in quotes. Another authoritative dictionary has left out that phrase after the word 'advantage.' I also did that in my discussion within my coherent theory of ethics. {I would rather have it incomplete and coherent; than have it complete and incoherent. Goedel showed how it had to be one or the other.} See Chapter 4 in Living the Good Life, pp. 21-28, for a detailed discussion and analysis of the theme proposed by apehead in the original post of this thread. A link to it is in the Preface to Ethical Adventures.

You are employing a theory of value that has long since been discarrded (due to all the holed in it) by philosophers in-the-know, namely Pritfchard's ethics; or Ayet's; or C. L. Stevenson's. Shame on you for being so far behind the times. {For example, see Mary Mothersill's critique of their views.}

Yes, by "objectivity" I mean "inter-subjectivity." I have said so several times in my writings -- which you (deliberately?) ignore. How can there be any other meaning of the term, since it is human beings who ultimatately are doing the conceiving, perceiving and experiencing of same datum (say, for example, the circumference of the Earth; or whether Napoleum ever lived; etc., etc.) Where human beings are involved we can't get away from subjectivity ....but so what?! Does that mean that nothing is objective? Of course not.


apehead;174175 wrote:
-In any event, they are still acting to satisfy themselves. Have you ever heard some local news hero saying something to the effect of "I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I didn't try to help"? ...
...I don't remember implying that they were the same. Although I'm afraid I am ignorant of your particular "Ethics Manual"....


You may have put your finger on the crux of the whole problem - at the end there. You then go on to make a comparison of my systematic set of models with the Bible - which, as I note in my writings, was the old way of teaching people ethics, but - agreeing with you - is an inadequate way.
Isn't that why we need to focus on some theories that are, or may be, superior?! If one method is not doing a good job, isn't it rational to seek another method that has promise to do a more effective job?

At the outset of the passage just quoted, you write: "they are still acting to satisfy themselves..." There is nothing wrong with that, provided it is - as Adam Smith, and Buddha, and many others since have observed - an enlightened self-interest !!

By that I mean one that is aware that 'What helps you, if it really does, also helps me; and vice versa.' In addition a person who knows his Social Ethics is aware that 'We are alll better off if everyone is better off.' The latter may be interpreted in an economic sense as meaning, if most every individual on Eath had a minimum level of financial comfort - say, what the Middle Class in the USA had when there still was a middle class - then there would be a lot less turmoil and danger for us in this world, for there would not be billions of others out there ready to "give us a hotfoot." Less desperation and misery, less needless (violent-type) conflict. Enlightened people know this.

My point, which seems to have been missed, is that 'individualism' is worth far less than 'individuality,' and why settle for less than the best. And this judgment has nothing to do with preference, but is a result of an axio-logical analysis, and thus somewhat objective. It was arrived at both by induction, abduction, and deduction - which is more than I can say about most propositions which are uttered.

[I wish that analysis were original with me; but then it's very hard to be original in the 21st Century !]

Martha Nussbaum, a better philosopher than most of us here will ever be, confirms my views - or I confirm hers - since she is working for a decent society, one with capability, civility, equal opportunity, and more compassion. Such a society she argues would have a good, solid, social safety net. Is there anyone here who does not support such a goal?

If so, you have no vision and I truly feel sorry for such an individual. He or she has what axiologists describe as 'Moral astigmatism.' That's an inability to Intrinsically value, an insensitivity. It is a handicap. It is unethical to be judgmental about it ...nor about any other perceived defect for that matter. Let's not be moralists. Let's be rational.

We deaden our lives. Why not LIVE !! Let each individual flourish !! Aristotle learned that from the Tao te Ching.

We are all in this together.
Let us seek harmony.
Recent philosophy learned this from Confucious. ....Very ancient wisdom.
[I learned both these facts in the history of ideas from Stephen Prothero, whose recent book is God is Not One.]

Prof. Nussbaum says that a philosopher ought to be "a lawyer for humanity." She argues convincingly that the philosopher's mission is to be an advocate for a better world.

She is joined in that view by a long, long line of big names in Philosophy, such as Aristotle, Kant, Mill, Foucault, Putnam, Rawls, Singer, etc., etc.

When we do this we are truly looking out for our Self-Interest.
 
apehead
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 10:55 am
@deepthot,
deepthot;174539 wrote:
In making a philosophical analysis with a view to clarify matters, we can disregard the "especially part of your so-call "actual" definition. [It is wise on your part to put that word "actual" in quotes. Another authoritative dictionary has left out that phrase after the word 'advantage.'

Hey man, I just copied and pasted the definition from dictionary.com. Thanks for a great example of the folly of objectivity, though. Something as seemingly cut and dry as a word to symbolize an agreed upon phenomena is still subject to individual interpretation.
deepthot;174539 wrote:
I also did that in my discussion within my coherent theory of ethics. {I would rather have it incomplete and coherent; than have it complete and incoherent. Goedel showed how it had to be one or the other.} See Chapter 4 in Living the Good Life, pp. 21-28, for a detailed discussion and analysis of the theme proposed by apehead in the original post of this thread. A link to it is in the Preface to Ethical Adventures.

Haven't read any of your stuff yet.

deepthot;174539 wrote:
You are employing a theory of value that has long since been discarrded (due to all the holed in it) by philosophers in-the-know, namely Pritfchard's ethics; or Ayet's; or C. L. Stevenson's. Shame on you for being so far behind the times. {For example, see Mary Mothersill's critique of their views.}


So there is an objective method for determining value? Sort of like the Labor Theory of Value? Although an economic theory, rather than an ethical one, I believe the mantra "central planning doesn't work" can be easily applied to both circumstances.

deepthot;174539 wrote:
Yes, by "objectivity" I mean "inter-subjectivity." I have said so several times in my writings -- which you (deliberately?) ignore. How can there be any other meaning of the term, since it is human beings who ultimatately are doing the conceiving, perceiving and experiencing of same datum (say, for example, the circumference of the Earth; or whether Napoleum ever lived; etc., etc.) Where human beings are involved we can't get away from subjectivity ....but so what?! Does that mean that nothing is objective? Of course not.


Objectivity is an abstract conceptualization, much like "zero", or "infinity". A hypothetical state of observation. Why is that the same as intersubjectivity? Here's some more definitions for you to find problems with:

"Intersubjective - comprehensible to, relating to, or used by a number of persons, as a concept or language"

"Objective - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased"

Now how are these the same, and how does objectivity as an abstract concept automatically make the word meaningless?

Finally, even if you are conflating objectivity with intersubjectivity, how is a majority opinion necessarily more representative of reality than a minority opinion?

deepthot;174539 wrote:
You may have put your finger on the crux of the whole problem - at the end there. You then go on to make a comparison of my systematic set of models with the Bible - which, as I note in my writings, was the old way of teaching people ethics, but - agreeing with you - is an inadequate way.
Isn't that why we need to focus on some theories that are, or may be, superior?! If one method is not doing a good job, isn't it rational to seek another method that has promise to do a more effective job?


We don't need to focus on anything. Who would determine which ethical theories are "superior" to others? How? What is the meter against which to measure them?

deepthot;174539 wrote:
At the outset of the passage just quoted, you write: "they are still acting to satisfy themselves..." There is nothing wrong with that, provided it is - as Adam Smith, and Buddha, and many others since have observed - an enlightened self-interest !!


But who becomes final arbiter of what selfish act is deemed "enlightened" and which isn't? How do they determine this? What meter will be used to judge actions against?

deepthot;174539 wrote:
By that I mean one that is aware that 'What helps you, if it really does, also helps me; and vice versa.'

Since we can agree that humans are incapable of perfect knowledge and therefore perfect logic and perfect judgement, it is impossible for a human, or group of humans to determine,totally and with complete certainty, what the outcome of any action will be. Therefore, there is no way for mortal agents to complete the task which you assign them in the preceding passage.
deepthot;174539 wrote:
In addition a person who knows his Social Ethics is aware that 'We are alll better off if everyone is better off.' The latter may be interpreted in an economic sense as meaning, if most every individual on Eath had a minimum level of financial comfort - say, what the Middle Class in the USA had when there still was a middle class - then there would be a lot less turmoil and danger for us in this world, for there would not be billions of others out there ready to "give us a hotfoot." Less desperation and misery, less needless (violent-type) conflict. Enlightened people know this.


This is not a truth. This is a values statement based upon your personal moral and aesthetic values. How do you know that? Please show me the evidence supporting the hypothesis,

"If every human being on Earth had the same economic status as an average American member of the middle class (what is that?), then there would be less turmoil and danger (also value loaded terms) in the world, and the United States would be less likely to be attacked."

Define "turmoil" and "danger". Define "middle-class". Why is the US not getting attacked considered a goal worth pursuing? To who (obviously not the potential attackers)? Why is this goal, and your proposed means to be considered enlightened?

deepthot;174539 wrote:
My point, which seems to have been missed, is that 'individualism' is worth far less than 'individuality,' and why settle for less than the best. And this judgment has nothing to do with preference, but is a result of an axio-logical analysis, and thus somewhat objective. It was arrived at both by induction, abduction, and deduction - which is more than I can say about most propositions which are uttered.

[I wish that analysis were original with me; but then it's very hard to be original in the 21st Century !]


I don't really understand that point. Why are the two destined to be mutually exclusive?

deepthot;174539 wrote:
Martha Nussbaum, a better philosopher than most of us here will ever be, confirms my views - or I confirm hers - since she is working for a decent society, one with capability, civility, equal opportunity, and more compassion. Such a society she argues would have a good, solid, social safety net. Is there anyone here who does not support such a goal?


I would have to know what you are describing with those values loaded terms above. It really depends on your personal values as to what you are using the words "decent", "capability", "civility", "equal opportunity", and "compassion". For all I know, your idea of a "decent" society is one in which women aren't allowed to work, or "civility" to you is a revival of Victorian parlour-etiquette.
As far as the social safety net, if it is state-run programs you are referring to, I am in disagreement. I prefer not to have the feds sticking a gun in my face to pay for programs that are utter failures in the goals the were purported to attempt to achieve.

deepthot;174539 wrote:
If so, you have no vision and I truly feel sorry for such an individual. He or she has what axiologists describe as 'Moral astigmatism.' That's an inability to Intrinsically value, an insensitivity. It is a handicap. It is unethical to be judgmental about it ...nor about any other perceived defect for that matter. Let's not be moralists. Let's be rational.


I'm glad to see that in Humanism, much like its non-secular analogies (religions), devout follower carry a big bag of piety around to sprinkle on the heads of us woeful lost souls. At least between the two usual routes of interaction an ideologue and a heretic can take, you have chosen self-satisfied patronization/pity over belligerence. Kudos.

deepthot;174539 wrote:
We deaden our lives. Why not LIVE !! Let each individual flourish !! Aristotle learned that from the Tao te Ching.


Eudaimonia... :nonooo:

deepthot;174539 wrote:
We are all in this together.
Let us seek harmony.
Recent philosophy learned this from Confucious. ....Very ancient wisdom.
[I learned both these facts in the history of ideas from Stephen Prothero, whose recent book is God is Not One.]

Prof. Nussbaum says that a philosopher ought to be "a lawyer for humanity." She argues convincingly that the philosopher's mission is to be an advocate for a better world.

She is joined in that view by a long, long line of big names in Philosophy, such as Aristotle, Kant, Mill, Foucault, Putnam, Rawls, Singer, etc., etc.

When we do this we are truly looking out for our Self-Interest.


Amen.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 02:43 am
@apehead,
apehead;174705 wrote:
.... Something as seemingly cut and dry as a word ... is still subject to individual interpretation.
Quote:


Yes, when it is vague and ambiguous, as the words in a dictionary are. But in formal logic, you won't find this phenomenon so much.

apehead;174705 wrote:
Haven't read any of your stuff yet.

So there is an objective method for determining value?
Quote:


Yes, there is. That's why it is important to do your homework. Start with the College Course. iAs you will note, its shortcomings are corrected in the later writings.

apehead;174705 wrote:

"Objective - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased"
Quote:


I think we both agree that nothing is objective in that sense, by that definition of the word. The closest we come to it is with symbolic logic.

apehead;174705 wrote:
.Now how are these the same, and how does objectivity as an abstract concept automatically make the word meaningless?
Quote:

I never claimed the word "objectivity" was meaningless. See Chapter 8 of ETHICS: A College Course where the topic is discussed and explained.

apehead;174705 wrote:

... [H]ow is a majority opinion necessarily more representative of reality than a minority opinion?

... determine which ethical theories are "superior" to others? How? What is the meter against which to measure them?
Quote:


These are all excellent questions and you will come closer to acquiring answers to them, if you really want to, when you read my papers, and earlier posts here.
In the Metaphysics Forum, here, I offered a formal definition of the concept, "reality" and analyzed its relation to the concepts "essence" and "existence." The post provoked a fine discussion which some consider to be a first-class dialog.


You write: "Since ..., it is impossible for a human, or group of humans to determine,totally and with complete certainty, what the outcome of any action will be. Therefore, there is no way for mortal agents to complete the task which you assign them in the preceding passage. "

However, I never assigned anyone such a task. My theory is not oriented around the concept "action." This rejoinder of yours is wide off the mark.


You write: "Define "turmoil" and "danger". Define "middle-class""
The first two are excellent projects for a good theory of ethics. The latter has already been adequately defined by Dinesh D'Sousa in his latest book, The Virtue of Prosperity. There he builds upon, and updates what Sociologists have already done..

When you ask: "Why is the US not getting attacked considered a goal worth pursuing? To who (obviously not the potential attackers)? Why is this goal, and your proposed means to be considered enlightened?" you show complete and utter moral nihilism, and make a joke out of ethics: for you succeed in giving the impression that to you 'wrong' equals 'right'; 'bad' is just as valid as 'good'; all behavior is morally equivalent: atrocity equals kindness, etc.
Such a nihilism is not helpful. We have urgent problems to solve if the human species is not to cause its own extinction.
Apathy, indifference, avoidance will not solve any problems.

However, when another personality emerged, and after I wrote these words: :

"We are all in this together.
Let us seek harmony.
Recent philosophy learned this from Confucious. ....Very ancient wisdom.
[I learned both these facts in the history of ideas from Stephen Prothero, whose recent book is God is Not One.]

Prof. Nussbaum says that a philosopher ought to be "a lawyer for humanity." She argues convincingly that the philosopher's mission is to be an advocate for a better world.

She is joined in that view by a long, long line of big names in Philosophy, such as Aristotle, Kant, Mill, Foucault, Putnam, Rawls, Singer, etc., etc.

When we do this we are truly looking out for our Self-Interest."

responding, you then said:

apehead;174705 wrote:
Amen.
Quote:


I'm glad you concur with the above statements. In doing so, you have joined the ranks of a growing majority.

There is some hope that you too may achieve the fine quality of piety some day soon. I don't know if I have it yet. Let's work on it together.:whistling:

Is it akin to holiness? (...another vague word....).:perplexed:
 
apehead
 
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 11:03 am
@deepthot,
deepthot;174952 wrote:
apehead;174705 wrote:
in formal logic, you won't find this phenomenon so much.


Because the meaning of the representative symbols are completely understood and agreed upon by the parties involved. I'm with you so far.

deepthot;174952 wrote:
Yes, there is. That's why it is important to do your homework. Start with the College Course. iAs you will note, its shortcomings are corrected in the later writings.


I'll check it out, but forgive me for being a bit skeptical.

deepthot;174952 wrote:
I think we both agree that nothing is objective in that sense, by that definition of the word. The closest we come to it is with symbolic logic.


I'm not sure if there are objective phenomena or not, simply because I'm unable to observe them if they do, in fact, exist.

deepthot;174952 wrote:
I never claimed the word "objectivity" was meaningless. See Chapter 8 of ETHICS: A College Course where the topic is discussed and explained.


If the above is the opinion you hold, then I'm not sure I understand this quote from your previous post:

deepthot;174952 wrote:
Yes, by "objectivity" I mean "inter-subjectivity." How can there be any other meaning of the term, since it is human beings who ultimately are doing the conceiving, perceiving and experiencing of same datum (say, for example, the circumference of the Earth; or whether Napoleon ever lived; etc., etc.) Where human beings are involved we can't get away from subjectivity ....but so what?! Does that mean that nothing is objective? Of course not.


So, instead of making the word "objective" devoid of its own definition (i.e. meaningless) and contorting it into an exact synonym of "intersubjective", you have now decided to accept the definition of "objective" I previously proposed, and claim it is non-existent (after admitting your uncertainty in the above quote)?:perplexed:

deepthot;174952 wrote:
These are all excellent questions and you will come closer to acquiring answers to them, if you really want to, when you read my papers, and earlier posts here.
In the Metaphysics Forum, here, I offered a formal definition of the concept, "reality" and analyzed its relation to the concepts "essence" and "existence." The post provoked a fine discussion which some consider to be a first-class dialog.


I'll have to check it out.

deepthot;174952 wrote:
However, I never assigned anyone such a task. My theory is not oriented around the concept "action." This rejoinder of yours is wide off the mark.


Let's analyze you prior statement,

deepthot;174952 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with... [acting in self-interest], provided it is... an enlightened self-interest !! By that I mean one that is aware that 'What helps you, if it really does, also helps me; and vice versa.'


Let's get rid of a few of the value-laden terms in the above:

"It does not offend my sensibilities to act in self-interest, provided I feel that the act is in accordance with what I consider to be "enlightened self-interest". I consider "enlightened self-interest" to be when the acting party only acts when they are assured that the consequence of said action will advance not only themselves, but myself (or perhaps some unnamed third party) towards our respective goals."

The above statement deals almost exclusively with action. If that is the case, I believe my response was appropriate. I'll re-state it in an "If-Then" format:

If humans are incapable of perfect knowledge, then it is impossible to know what the goals of another are, and if the action in question would achieve their goals, or the goals of another. Therefore, the task you charge to humans (determining whether actions will actually advance them towards their goals, and the goals of another) is impossible. QED

deepthot;174952 wrote:
The first two are excellent projects for a good theory of ethics. The latter has already been adequately defined by Dinesh D'Sousa in his latest book, The Virtue of Prosperity. There he builds upon, and updates what Sociologists have already done..


Can't say that I've read it, but I'm sure there are still differing opinions out there...

deepthot;174952 wrote:
you show complete and utter moral nihilism, and make a joke out of ethics: for you succeed in giving the impression that to you 'wrong' equals 'right'; 'bad' is just as valid as 'good'; all behavior is morally equivalent: atrocity equals kindness, etc.


I guess I should be relieved, since being a moral nihilist, my words stay true to my beliefs!

Although, I don't claim it a fact, or truth, that all actions are morally equivalent, I just haven't yet been convinced by any of the evidence to the contrary that I've considered.

deepthot;174952 wrote:
Such a nihilism is not helpful. We have urgent problems to solve if the human species is not to cause its own extinction.
Apathy, indifference, avoidance will not solve any problems.


Avoiding extinction is not necessarily "good" or "bad". It just happens to be a goal you hold. You would do well to provide some reason why it is a goal I should hold as well.

[QUOTE=deepthot;174952]I'm glad you concur with the above statements. In doing so, you have joined the ranks of a growing majority.


:lol:Sorry, my sarcasm didn't translate so well over the media of typed word.

deepthot;174952 wrote:
There is some hope that you too may achieve the fine quality of piety some day soon. I don't know if I have it yet. Let's work on it together.

Is it akin to holiness? (...another vague word....).



"Piety - reverence for god or devout fulfillment of religious obligations"
"Holiness - the quality or state of being holy; sanctity"

Either one can be rather irritating to the ears, eyes, and skin...
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » The Virtue Of Self Interest?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/24/2019 at 04:18:23