Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I can't order them by magnitude of selfishness. That's like pointing to the Pacific and Atlantic ocean and telling me to arrange them in order of wateriness. In stead, I'll tell you why they're all selfish.
1) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted me to have it.
2) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted my kids to have it.
3) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted everyone (except, apparently, the store owner) to have it.
4) Selfish. I didn't steal the candy because -I- would rather walk away than steal it.
5) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- valued having the candy more than I valued having the money it cost.
6) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted my girlfriend to have it.
7) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted my kids to have it.
8) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted everyone to have some.
9) Selfish. I gave out the candy because it was more important to -me- that others eat it than that I eat it.
Get it? No matter what your motives are, you can't remove the "I" and the "me" from the action. It's impossible. You're nobody's puppet.
This was his answer that he denies he made.
When did I deny this answer? I denied the implication of your responses, which seemed to be that if I acknowledge that these are all selfish, then I have to acknowledge that they are all morally equivalent.
I don't believe these to be morally equivalent acts. When I brought that up, implying that I have a set of morals, you then accused me of claiming that I decide which of these acts are good and which are evil.
All you've done, rather than argue with my answers, is assume crazy shit about them and then call me an idiot and a liar.
I'm sorry, but that part is true, regardless of whether or not I was right about why you were throwing such a shit-fit after I said all those acts are selfish. I can't be 100 percent sure that the moral difference not equating to a selfishness difference in my mind is what threw you into this tailspin, but I do know that my analysis of what you've been doing since then has been RIGHT ON. Undeniably.
This was his answer that he denies he made.
When did I deny this answer? I denied the implication of your responses, which seemed to be that if I acknowledge that these are all selfish, then I have to acknowledge that they are all morally equivalent.
I don't believe these to be morally equivalent acts. When I brought that up, implying that I have a set of morals, you then accused me of claiming that I decide which of these acts are good and which are evil.
All you've done, rather than argue with my answers, is assume crazy shit about them and then call me an idiot and a liar.
I'm sorry, but that part is true, regardless of whether or not I was right about why you were throwing such a shit-fit after I said all those acts are selfish. I can't be 100 percent sure that the moral difference not equating to a selfishness difference in my mind is what threw you into this tailspin, but I do know that my analysis of what you've been doing since then has been RIGHT ON. Undeniably.
First you said you "can't order them by magnitude of selfishness." That was your first lie. Then you said "[t]hat's like pointing to the Pacific and Atlantic ocean and telling me to arrange them in order of wateriness." That was your second lie.
Then you went on with some stupid deflection showing your inability to read a sentence without completely rewriting it to make it mean the opposite of what it originally said.
When did I deny this answer? I denied the implication of your responses, which seemed to be that if I acknowledge that these are all selfish, then I have to acknowledge that they are all morally equivalent.
I don't believe these to be morally equivalent acts. When I brought that up, implying that I have a set of morals, you then accused me of claiming that I decide which of these acts are good and which are evil.
All you've done, rather than argue with my answers, is assume crazy shit about them and then call me an idiot and a liar.
I'm sorry, but that part is true, regardless of whether or not I was right about why you were throwing such a shit-fit after I said all those acts are selfish. I can't be 100 percent sure that the moral difference not equating to a selfishness difference in my mind is what threw you into this tailspin, but I do know that my analysis of what you've been doing since then has been RIGHT ON. Undeniably.
First you said you "can't order them by magnitude of selfishness." That was your first lie. Then you said "[t]hat's like pointing to the Pacific and Atlantic ocean and telling me to arrange them in order of wateriness." That was your second lie.
Then you went on with some stupid deflection showing your inability to read a sentence without completely rewriting it to make it mean the opposite of what it originally said.
Those two things I said are honest representations of my beliefs on this topic. How were they lies? If you want to call them incorrect call them incorrect and debate 'em, but calling me a liar because you disagree? That's faggot shit, homie. It's called intellectual insecurity. You'd rather call those opinions lies than actually have to question beliefs that you obviously hold dear. When I used this question to reinforce that everything is selfish and that selfishness therefore isn't morally wrong, you pretty much started foaming at the mouth and made the assumption that my view that they are all selfish made them all the same, as though the morality of the acts had no other criteria than their relative selfishness. That reaction, and this one, says that you view, fanatically, that selfishness is evil, and you're unwilling to part with that belief for any reason. So in stead of analyzing what I've said, you call it a lie so that you don't have to consider it and can feel secure that nothing can logically challenge your belief. You're not only stupid, you're such a pussy about it that you're afraid to admit to yourself when you might be mistaken.
Also, I don't know what this deflection shit is that you're talking about. Perhaps you'd like to point out what I said and how I then twisted it to make it the opposite? Otherwise this is just another baseless accusation to add to the list of baseless accusations.
First you said you "can't order them by magnitude of selfishness." That was your first lie. Then you said "[t]hat's like pointing to the Pacific and Atlantic ocean and telling me to arrange them in order of wateriness." That was your second lie.
Then you went on with some stupid deflection showing your inability to read a sentence without completely rewriting it to make it mean the opposite of what it originally said.
Those two things I said are honest representations of my beliefs on this topic. How were they lies? If you want to call them incorrect call them incorrect and debate 'em, but calling me a liar because you disagree? That's faggot shit, homie. It's called intellectual insecurity. You'd rather call those opinions lies than actually have to question beliefs that you obviously hold dear. When I used this question to reinforce that everything is selfish and that selfishness therefore isn't morally wrong, you pretty much started foaming at the mouth and made the assumption that my view that they are all selfish made them all the same, as though the morality of the acts had no other criteria than their relative selfishness. That reaction, and this one, says that you view, fanatically, that selfishness is evil, and you're unwilling to part with that belief for any reason. So in stead of analyzing what I've said, you call it a lie so that you don't have to consider it and can feel secure that nothing can logically challenge your belief. You're not only stupid, you're such a pussy about it that you're afraid to admit to yourself when you might be mistaken.
Also, I don't know what this deflection shit is that you're talking about. Perhaps you'd like to point out what I said and how I then twisted it to make it the opposite? Otherwise this is just another baseless accusation to add to the list of baseless accusations.
You lied to avoid the task or ordering the items by magnitude of selfishness. Your claim that you can't discern the difference in magnitude of selfishness between stealing for yourself and buying for everyone is complete and utter nonsense. Every bit as much of a lie as stating that there is no difference between being choosing to be selfish and choosing to be unselfish. It is a complete and utter nonsensical bold faced lie. It's like the assholes proclaiming the emperor is dressed well as he prances around naked. It's not just a bold faced lie it's complete and utter non-sense that just makes you out to be the water carrying fool you are. In this case, carrying water for whatever you want to call evil, be it Satan or whatever it is you are worshiping to maintain that all good deeds are inherently selfish.
Those two things I said are honest representations of my beliefs on this topic. How were they lies? If you want to call them incorrect call them incorrect and debate 'em, but calling me a liar because you disagree? That's faggot shit, homie. It's called intellectual insecurity. You'd rather call those opinions lies than actually have to question beliefs that you obviously hold dear. When I used this question to reinforce that everything is selfish and that selfishness therefore isn't morally wrong, you pretty much started foaming at the mouth and made the assumption that my view that they are all selfish made them all the same, as though the morality of the acts had no other criteria than their relative selfishness. That reaction, and this one, says that you view, fanatically, that selfishness is evil, and you're unwilling to part with that belief for any reason. So in stead of analyzing what I've said, you call it a lie so that you don't have to consider it and can feel secure that nothing can logically challenge your belief. You're not only stupid, you're such a pussy about it that you're afraid to admit to yourself when you might be mistaken.
Also, I don't know what this deflection shit is that you're talking about. Perhaps you'd like to point out what I said and how I then twisted it to make it the opposite? Otherwise this is just another baseless accusation to add to the list of baseless accusations.
You lied to avoid the task or ordering the items by magnitude of selfishness. Your claim that you can't discern the difference in magnitude of selfishness between stealing for yourself and buying for everyone is complete and utter nonsense. Every bit as much of a lie as stating that there is no difference between being choosing to be selfish and choosing to be unselfish. It is a complete and utter nonsensical bold faced lie. It's like the assholes proclaiming the emperor is dressed well as he prances around naked. It's not just a bold faced lie it's complete and utter non-sense that just makes you out to be the water carrying fool you are. In this case, carrying water for whatever you want to call evil, be it Satan or whatever it is you are worshiping to maintain that all good deeds are inherently selfish.
It is not complete and utter nonsense, it is the logical conclusion of my actual beliefs, you fuckin idiot. I even explained why.
There is no difference in magnitude of selfishness for those things because both acts would imply that the result was exactly what the one getting the candy WANTED. If I bought it for everyone, it's because I WANTED TO BUY IT FOR EVERYONE. If I stole it for me, it's because I WANTED TO STEAL IT FOR ME. Both actions are guided by the desires of the one acting. Both are purely selfish.
They both have different levels of regard for other people, but that has exactly ZERO to do with how selfish they are, according to my view of selfishness.
It is like my ocean analogy, also. You could try to say that the pacific ocean is waterier because it's larger, but I'd call bullshit. They're both -entirely- water. The difference in size doesn't denote a difference in wateriness.
That is not a lie. That is my belief in the psychology of an individual consciousness. I don't know why it's so hard for you to accept that I believe what I say I believe.
Next, I never stated that there's no difference between choosing to be selfish and choosing to be unselfish. I said that you can't choose to be unselfish. Unselfish isn't possible unless you've figured out how to let someone else control you like a puppet. Choosing -anything- implies deciding which thing is more valuable. That decision is based on -your- standards. Any choice means choosing what is most valuable to -you-. IT's all based on -you-. It's all selfish. Any choice. Choosing something that has a high regard for other people is often, in my opinion, morally commendable, but no less selfish than being completely inconsiderate. Ultimately, every choice perpetuates the values of the chooser. Everything -you- do is about -you-
For what I'm saying to be a lie requires that I share your idea that consideration for others cancels out selfishness. I believe no such thing. Therefore nothing I've said is a bald faced lie. Everything I've said is what I truly believe, and if you think it's as easy to disprove as the emperor's clothing, you have no understanding of the basic premises of philosophy.
Lastly, I'm not the one trying to carry water for anyone. I've got my own views on right and wrong and I live by those. You, however, still can't get past the fact that you view "evil" and "selfish" as synonyms and I don't. As soon as you can separate evil and selfish, even for the sake of argument, you'll understand what I'm saying. I'm saying there's no such thing as unselfish, not that there's no such thing as evil and, given what I've seen of your political philosophy, you and I probably agree quite a bit on which actions we feel are good and which we feel are evil.
Let's recount:
Liberal definition of unselfish is selfish.
Liberal definition of liberty is authority.
Liberal definition of freedom is anarchy.
Liberal definition of patriotic is unpatriotic.
Liberal definition of affordable health care is un-affordable insurance and no health care.
ROFL and they wonder why we call them libtards.
You lied to avoid the task or ordering the items by magnitude of selfishness. Your claim that you can't discern the difference in magnitude of selfishness between stealing for yourself and buying for everyone is complete and utter nonsense. Every bit as much of a lie as stating that there is no difference between being choosing to be selfish and choosing to be unselfish. It is a complete and utter nonsensical bold faced lie. It's like the assholes proclaiming the emperor is dressed well as he prances around naked. It's not just a bold faced lie it's complete and utter non-sense that just makes you out to be the water carrying fool you are. In this case, carrying water for whatever you want to call evil, be it Satan or whatever it is you are worshiping to maintain that all good deeds are inherently selfish.
It is not complete and utter nonsense, it is the logical conclusion of my actual beliefs, you fuckin idiot. I even explained why.
There is no difference in magnitude of selfishness for those things because both acts would imply that the result was exactly what the one getting the candy WANTED. If I bought it for everyone, it's because I WANTED TO BUY IT FOR EVERYONE. If I stole it for me, it's because I WANTED TO STEAL IT FOR ME. Both actions are guided by the desires of the one acting. Both are purely selfish.
They both have different levels of regard for other people, but that has exactly ZERO to do with how selfish they are, according to my view of selfishness.
It is like my ocean analogy, also. You could try to say that the pacific ocean is waterier because it's larger, but I'd call bullshit. They're both -entirely- water. The difference in size doesn't denote a difference in wateriness.
That is not a lie. That is my belief in the psychology of an individual consciousness. I don't know why it's so hard for you to accept that I believe what I say I believe.
Next, I never stated that there's no difference between choosing to be selfish and choosing to be unselfish. I said that you can't choose to be unselfish. Unselfish isn't possible unless you've figured out how to let someone else control you like a puppet. Choosing -anything- implies deciding which thing is more valuable. That decision is based on -your- standards. Any choice means choosing what is most valuable to -you-. IT's all based on -you-. It's all selfish. Any choice. Choosing something that has a high regard for other people is often, in my opinion, morally commendable, but no less selfish than being completely inconsiderate. Ultimately, every choice perpetuates the values of the chooser. Everything -you- do is about -you-
For what I'm saying to be a lie requires that I share your idea that consideration for others cancels out selfishness. I believe no such thing. Therefore nothing I've said is a bald faced lie. Everything I've said is what I truly believe, and if you think it's as easy to disprove as the emperor's clothing, you have no understanding of the basic premises of philosophy.
Lastly, I'm not the one trying to carry water for anyone. I've got my own views on right and wrong and I live by those. You, however, still can't get past the fact that you view "evil" and "selfish" as synonyms and I don't. As soon as you can separate evil and selfish, even for the sake of argument, you'll understand what I'm saying. I'm saying there's no such thing as unselfish, not that there's no such thing as evil and, given what I've seen of your political philosophy, you and I probably agree quite a bit on which actions we feel are good and which we feel are evil.
Complete and utter nonsense.
And yes, your views are the ones pointed out by all religions as those held by Satan worshipers or whatever it is they call evil in their religion. In your world everything is upside down from mine. From my perspective, everything you say, nearly every single sentence is a boldfaced lie. Nothing more than vile spew as from a demon spawn of satan.
So what you're saying is that you're done having this argument on a logical level. The dogmatists out there view my philosophy as the work of the devil, so it's evil, and that's that!
Thank you for admitting that your beliefs are based on your faith in the widely held opinions of religious sheep. That makes your inability to understand what I'm saying easier to wrap my mind around.
While you're at it, you should shove your fingers in your ears and go, "La la la la! La la la la!"
So what you're saying is that you're done having this argument on a logical level. The dogmatists out there view my philosophy as the work of the devil, so it's evil, and that's that!
Thank you for admitting that your beliefs are based on your faith in the widely held opinions of religious sheep. That makes your inability to understand what I'm saying easier to wrap my mind around.
While you're at it, you should shove your fingers in your ears and go, "La la la la! La la la la!"
Do you deny your work is the work of Satan?
Do you deny that a Satan would promote that all acts of the selfless are in fact selfish... so embrace your inner selfish desires cause there is no choice between selfish and unselfish. There are only lies of those who pretend to have ulterior motives but rather are actually hiding their true motives, their true selfish desires?
Or maybe you are just one evil person who's every desire is selfish, thus you can't understand how anyone could be different than you.
Again, you're implying that good acts born of selfishness are the ones that have ulterior motives. That's not at all what I'm saying. Yes, it is.
I'm saying that even if you buy candy for everyone because you feel that everyone should have candy, you're still doing it because YOU WANT EVERYONE TO HAVE CANDY! Wanting everyone to have candy is not selfish. Wanting everyone to watch you eat candy while they go without in jealousy, that's selfish.
I'm not presupposing why, I'm not saying you get some hidden thrill out of it. I'm saying that you value everyone having candy. . . it doesn't matter WHY you value it, just THAT you value it. Putting others before yourself is not selfish. Valuing the joy of others is not being selfish, it is being selfless.
In my view, your motives don't decide whether the action is good or evil. The action decides. Nonsense. Accidents are not on purpose, intention most certainly does affect actions not only the result but also their meaning. Watch:
If I buy candy for everyone because I want to fuck my girlfriend and watching me be generous gets her horny, the result of that action is that everyone gets free candy, the guy selling the candy gets the money he wanted for it, and I get laid by a woman who honestly -wants- to fuck me, now. Everybody gets what they want and nobody's forced into anything. In my view, this action is undeniably good. Agreed. Thus my point that motive counts.
If I buy candy for everyone because I'm just that generous and I prefer that people have what they want, the result of that action is that everyone gets free candy, the guy selling the candy gets the money he wants for it, and I now experience an existence where people have one more thing that they want, which benefits me because it is what I want. Everybody gets what they want and nobody's forced into anything. In my view, this action is undeniably good. Agreed, motive matters.
One of these actions was performed out of what your dogma would call a selfish desire (the desire to get laid) Lies. Getting laid to the mutual benefit of two adults is not a selfish act. Who told you that?
and one was performed out of what your dogma would call a selfless desire (just wanting other people to have what they want), and yet both of these actions had the same ultimate result. Not the same result you got laid in the first one. Not the exact same motive but you were not being "entirely" selfish in either. The selfish act would have been to steel the money for the candy, buy the candy with stolen money, showing the girl how generous you are and getting cred from all the folks you handed out your ill gotten gain from. Then after having sex with the girl telling her to get some sick selfish satisfaction out of making her cry. Then going back to the store and telling him the money was stolen and you pissed on the candy before handing it out to everyone.
If the "magnitude of selfishness", as you view it to be, didn't make any actual difference in what happened, then how could you say that one act was morally superior to the other, and how could you say that the selfishness made the first act evil if everyone benefitted and nobody suffered? pointing out that you can draw up what might be a convoluted scenario in which there may be little to no difference between the selflessness of two selfless acts is not the same as there is no difference between clearly selfish acts and clearly selfless acts.
You're still presupposing that selfish and evil are synonyms. No, I'm not. That's your incorrect presumption.
Try to look at it from my perspective before you judge what I'm saying to be a lie. I did.. you didn't. Instead you made up some ludicrious presumptions.
If your argument has boiled down to, "My religion says you're wrong so you're wrong!" then you're done thinking and, thus, done debating. Let's find out
Honestly, I hope you're able to think outside the box of your own dogmatic belief system, at least for the sake of argument. I hate when people too dumb to do so stumble onto similar political philosophies to mine. Makes me more insecure about my opinions than I ought to be lol
I don't assume that there can be no soul. Where are you getting this?
I keep telling you, I'm agnostic. I don't believe or disbelieve. I accept the possibility, but I don't feel like I know either way whether or not we have a soul. You get it?
Also, EVEN IF WE HAVE A SOUL, it is STILL POSSIBLE that the soul is possessed of the same individual nature as our physical consciousness, and as such would be bound by the same conundrum as our physical beings: that every one of its acts was inherently selfish. That no matter what choice it made, that choice would be a selfish one.
Personally, I'm not assuming anything other than that an individual consciousness is capable -only- of selfish choices (any choice it makes is by definition selfish).
You, on the other hand, are assuming a lot of strange things. You never have explained -why- you believe that the existence of a soul negates the nature of selfishness as it relates to an individual consciousness.
Yes I did you were not paying attn.
The only way you could argue that a souless body is rendered incapable of choosing selfless acts over selfish desires is to argue that the body, brain included, makes all decisions there is no actual choice only reactive actions taken by the body on stimulus for the betterment of the body. If however you agree there is a soul, then what is the soul if not a free entity able to make a choice between selfless acts over selfish desires. To argue the soul is incapable of self-determination, no different than an autonomic reflex, is ridiculous. The entire concept of soul is centered on self-determination. Thus it comes down to whether you believe in self-determination or not. If you do, then you believe in the soul. If you don't, then you might come to the understanding that the body reacts on stimulus and self-determination is a myth perpetuated by the body to make itself feel good.
You're wrong in your opening assumption. I'm not saying that humans aren't capable of choosing selfless acts. I'm saying that there is no such thing -as- a selfless act. I'm not negating choice from the equation, I'm negating the existence of selflessness. It's not even a thing. How is this so hard for you to comprehend? I'm not saying people don't make their own choices. I'm saying that whatever choice they make is inevitably a selfish one. All choices are selfish because selfish is all that exists. Selfless is an illusion we made so that we can assign extra positive value to acts that benefit others and feel nice and warm and fuzzy about those acts because, for some reason, the fact that they provide benefit isn't enough if we can't detach ourselves from the process. It's silly dogmatic bullshit and it doesn't exist. That's my argument.
Not that the selfless choices are out of reach of mankind due to a lack of free will, but that SELFLESS CHOICES DONT EXIST.
Get it? Holy shit. I don't know how I could put it into simpler terms. If you still don't get what I'm saying this time, I fuckin give up. Seriously.
Also, even without a soul, self-determination is still possible. The fact that we are sentient and able to control and deny our instinctive and emotional reactions to stimuli proves that only sentience is required for self-determination. If we were nothing more than biological reaction to stimuli, then our reactions would be pretty universal, no?
Or maybe your claim is that our sentience proves the existence of a soul? LOL! Logic that one out for me.
You still haven't illustrated how no soul means no self-determination. You've said that it is the case, then found another way of saying it (i.e. that without a soul we just react to stimuli) but you haven't actually backed up that claim with fact. You've got your claim, but you're missing the larger portion of what is required to make this a debate: Reasoning.
Again, you're implying that good acts born of selfishness are the ones that have ulterior motives. That's not at all what I'm saying. Yes, it is.
I'm saying that even if you buy candy for everyone because you feel that everyone should have candy, you're still doing it because YOU WANT EVERYONE TO HAVE CANDY! Wanting everyone to have candy is not selfish. Wanting everyone to watch you eat candy while they go without in jealousy, that's selfish.
I'm not presupposing why, I'm not saying you get some hidden thrill out of it. I'm saying that you value everyone having candy. . . it doesn't matter WHY you value it, just THAT you value it. Putting others before yourself is not selfish. Valuing the joy of others is not being selfish, it is being selfless.
In my view, your motives don't decide whether the action is good or evil. The action decides. Nonsense. Accidents are not on purpose, intention most certainly does affect actions not only the result but also their meaning. Watch:
If I buy candy for everyone because I want to fuck my girlfriend and watching me be generous gets her horny, the result of that action is that everyone gets free candy, the guy selling the candy gets the money he wanted for it, and I get laid by a woman who honestly -wants- to fuck me, now. Everybody gets what they want and nobody's forced into anything. In my view, this action is undeniably good. Agreed. Thus my point that motive counts.
If I buy candy for everyone because I'm just that generous and I prefer that people have what they want, the result of that action is that everyone gets free candy, the guy selling the candy gets the money he wants for it, and I now experience an existence where people have one more thing that they want, which benefits me because it is what I want. Everybody gets what they want and nobody's forced into anything. In my view, this action is undeniably good. Agreed, motive matters.
One of these actions was performed out of what your dogma would call a selfish desire (the desire to get laid) Lies. Getting laid to the mutual benefit of two adults is not a selfish act. Who told you that?
and one was performed out of what your dogma would call a selfless desire (just wanting other people to have what they want), and yet both of these actions had the same ultimate result. Not the same result you got laid in the first one. Not the exact same motive but you were not being "entirely" selfish in either. The selfish act would have been to steel the money for the candy, buy the candy with stolen money, showing the girl how generous you are and getting cred from all the folks you handed out your ill gotten gain from. Then after having sex with the girl telling her to get some sick selfish satisfaction out of making her cry. Then going back to the store and telling him the money was stolen and you pissed on the candy before handing it out to everyone.
If the "magnitude of selfishness", as you view it to be, didn't make any actual difference in what happened, then how could you say that one act was morally superior to the other, and how could you say that the selfishness made the first act evil if everyone benefitted and nobody suffered? pointing out that you can draw up what might be a convoluted scenario in which there may be little to no difference between the selflessness of two selfless acts is not the same as there is no difference between clearly selfish acts and clearly selfless acts.
You're still presupposing that selfish and evil are synonyms. No, I'm not. That's your incorrect presumption.
Try to look at it from my perspective before you judge what I'm saying to be a lie. I did.. you didn't. Instead you made up some ludicrious presumptions.
If your argument has boiled down to, "My religion says you're wrong so you're wrong!" then you're done thinking and, thus, done debating. Let's find out
Honestly, I hope you're able to think outside the box of your own dogmatic belief system, at least for the sake of argument. I hate when people too dumb to do so stumble onto similar political philosophies to mine. Makes me more insecure about my opinions than I ought to be lol
Heh... I'll debate it if you'll be honest. If I think your being dishonest I'll call you a liar. I'm like that.
Yes I did you were not paying attn.
The only way you could argue that a souless body is rendered incapable of choosing selfless acts over selfish desires is to argue that the body, brain included, makes all decisions there is no actual choice only reactive actions taken by the body on stimulus for the betterment of the body. If however you agree there is a soul, then what is the soul if not a free entity able to make a choice between selfless acts over selfish desires. To argue the soul is incapable of self-determination, no different than an autonomic reflex, is ridiculous. The entire concept of soul is centered on self-determination. Thus it comes down to whether you believe in self-determination or not. If you do, then you believe in the soul. If you don't, then you might come to the understanding that the body reacts on stimulus and self-determination is a myth perpetuated by the body to make itself feel good.
You're wrong in your opening assumption. I'm not saying that humans aren't capable of choosing selfless acts. I'm saying that there is no such thing -as- a selfless act. I'm not negating choice from the equation, I'm negating the existence of selflessness. It's not even a thing. How is this so hard for you to comprehend? I'm not saying people don't make their own choices. I'm saying that whatever choice they make is inevitably a selfish one. All choices are selfish because selfish is all that exists. Selfless is an illusion we made so that we can assign extra positive value to acts that benefit others and feel nice and warm and fuzzy about those acts because, for some reason, the fact that they provide benefit isn't enough if we can't detach ourselves from the process. It's silly dogmatic bullshit and it doesn't exist. That's my argument.
Not that the selfless choices are out of reach of mankind due to a lack of free will, but that SELFLESS CHOICES DONT EXIST.
Get it? Holy shit. I don't know how I could put it into simpler terms. If you still don't get what I'm saying this time, I fuckin give up. Seriously.
Also, even without a soul, self-determination is still possible. The fact that we are sentient and able to control and deny our instinctive and emotional reactions to stimuli proves that only sentience is required for self-determination. If we were nothing more than biological reaction to stimuli, then our reactions would be pretty universal, no?
Or maybe your claim is that our sentience proves the existence of a soul? LOL! Logic that one out for me.
You still haven't illustrated how no soul means no self-determination. You've said that it is the case, then found another way of saying it (i.e. that without a soul we just react to stimuli) but you haven't actually backed up that claim with fact. You've got your claim, but you're missing the larger portion of what is required to make this a debate: Reasoning.
Hi Not2B and RKMB
When you say there is no such thing as a selfless act
is this similar to saying humans cannot be perfectly "objective" or "unbiased"
because "on some level" we will always project some of ourselves or self-interest
into anything we think say or do?
If so I agree.
But the point is whether we can manage this self-imposing bias or perception
by equally considering all other people and working out decisions
that are fair.
Because we always impose our own bias of our experience/perceptions
that is why other people have to represent THEIR biases and interests.
So we check and balance each other, since we ALL do this.
You are right, we are always going to carry a bias from our personal experience which is 'selfish.'
As humans we cannot get around that, though some people are more empathetic
and can connect and include or represent others alongside their own interests.
This isn't perfect, but we can balance being selfish and selfless,
and find where we AGREE with other people doing the same.
As long as we find the greatest good with mutual benefit agreed by all,
that is the most we can do.
It will still benefit "ourselves" but it will also help "others equally"
so it is selfless in that sense, of putting the "good of the whole"
above our individual interests, but it is still "self beneficial" because it helps all of us and meets our needs for stability, security and sustainable relations and solutions in life.
Any human behavior can be detrimental, when taken to an absurd extreme.
Claiming any one as the universal root of evil is just too simplistic for words.
That's completely fine if you believe that, however I am asserting there is just one root - the bi-product of the illusion of separateness (which is selfishness).
Perhaps can you provide an example of "a problem" where selfishness wasn't the root cause?
Maybe that would be an interesting place to start from.
.
This is more of a spiritual discussion vs a discussion of political systems in today's world setting. It's saying "what if" everyone could elevate themselves to behave unselfishly, and work towards the best outcome of the whole. In that scenario, everyone would consider themselves as "one" - part of the whole - and thus there would exist not an elite class, or a poor class (because those are just representations of further separation/individuality).
Again, don't mistake me as a socialist, etc pushing for a communist system, etc. Again, this is purely a spiritual/moral discussion. Achieving enlightenment, selflessness, is something that cannot be forced by a state or governing body; it must (instead) be achieved in a free environment.
Do we all not think though Paineful? Doesn't each one of us have thoughts, by which will drive our manipulation of the environment and the world around us? Since we all think, and are conscious, and (if you believe) are all one, wouldn't there be some sort of interconnected direction all of our collective thoughts/ideas/etc are leading us?
I don't understand how you could conclude that is a "religious" argument. I don't think it is at all.
Up to if so I agree, you and I see eye to eye. The rest of your post describes the particular demands of your moral code, some of which I agree with, some of which I disagree with.
My argument here never had anything to do with what -is- good or what -is- evil. My argument has been, all along, that selfishness is a given and therefore isn't the dividing line between the two.
The dividing line between good and evil is much blurrier, as morality ultimately boils down to a dogmatic baseline. None of our morals can be proven right or wrong, so one person's values can't be said to be definitively more correct than someone else's.
That said, if you're using selfish and unselfish as your criteria for good and evil, you're building your dogma on a logical fallacy.
Again, you're implying that good acts born of selfishness are the ones that have ulterior motives. That's not at all what I'm saying. Yes, it is.
I'm saying that even if you buy candy for everyone because you feel that everyone should have candy, you're still doing it because YOU WANT EVERYONE TO HAVE CANDY! Wanting everyone to have candy is not selfish. Wanting everyone to watch you eat candy while they go without in jealousy, that's selfish.
I'm not presupposing why, I'm not saying you get some hidden thrill out of it. I'm saying that you value everyone having candy. . . it doesn't matter WHY you value it, just THAT you value it. Putting others before yourself is not selfish. Valuing the joy of others is not being selfish, it is being selfless.
In my view, your motives don't decide whether the action is good or evil. The action decides. Nonsense. Accidents are not on purpose, intention most certainly does affect actions not only the result but also their meaning. Watch:
If I buy candy for everyone because I want to fuck my girlfriend and watching me be generous gets her horny, the result of that action is that everyone gets free candy, the guy selling the candy gets the money he wanted for it, and I get laid by a woman who honestly -wants- to fuck me, now. Everybody gets what they want and nobody's forced into anything. In my view, this action is undeniably good. Agreed. Thus my point that motive counts.
If I buy candy for everyone because I'm just that generous and I prefer that people have what they want, the result of that action is that everyone gets free candy, the guy selling the candy gets the money he wants for it, and I now experience an existence where people have one more thing that they want, which benefits me because it is what I want. Everybody gets what they want and nobody's forced into anything. In my view, this action is undeniably good. Agreed, motive matters.
One of these actions was performed out of what your dogma would call a selfish desire (the desire to get laid) Lies. Getting laid to the mutual benefit of two adults is not a selfish act. Who told you that?
and one was performed out of what your dogma would call a selfless desire (just wanting other people to have what they want), and yet both of these actions had the same ultimate result. Not the same result you got laid in the first one. Not the exact same motive but you were not being "entirely" selfish in either. The selfish act would have been to steel the money for the candy, buy the candy with stolen money, showing the girl how generous you are and getting cred from all the folks you handed out your ill gotten gain from. Then after having sex with the girl telling her to get some sick selfish satisfaction out of making her cry. Then going back to the store and telling him the money was stolen and you pissed on the candy before handing it out to everyone.
If the "magnitude of selfishness", as you view it to be, didn't make any actual difference in what happened, then how could you say that one act was morally superior to the other, and how could you say that the selfishness made the first act evil if everyone benefitted and nobody suffered? pointing out that you can draw up what might be a convoluted scenario in which there may be little to no difference between the selflessness of two selfless acts is not the same as there is no difference between clearly selfish acts and clearly selfless acts.
You're still presupposing that selfish and evil are synonyms. No, I'm not. That's your incorrect presumption.
Try to look at it from my perspective before you judge what I'm saying to be a lie. I did.. you didn't. Instead you made up some ludicrious presumptions.
If your argument has boiled down to, "My religion says you're wrong so you're wrong!" then you're done thinking and, thus, done debating. Let's find out
Honestly, I hope you're able to think outside the box of your own dogmatic belief system, at least for the sake of argument. I hate when people too dumb to do so stumble onto similar political philosophies to mine. Makes me more insecure about my opinions than I ought to be lol
Heh... I'll debate it if you'll be honest. If I think your being dishonest I'll call you a liar. I'm like that.
I'll start with this: I haven't lied once in this post. Everything I've expressed is honestly what I believe. So far, I have to assume that your definition of a lie is any statement that isn't biblical. You can keep that as your personal definition, but English demands that I say something I know to be false in order to be lying, and English definitions have the monopoly on English definitions. The bible does not.
[[[[Again, you're implying that good acts born of selfishness are the ones that have ulterior motives. That's not at all what I'm saying. Yes, it is.]]]]]
No, it isn't. This is another example of you not being able to think outside the box of your own beliefs. I'm saying that EVEN THE ACTIONS WITH NO ULTERIOR MOTIVE ARE SELFISH. The ones with ulterior motives are selfish. The ones without ulterior motives are selfish. You have to assume that I share your beliefs on the nature of selfishness to believe that I believe that only ulterior motives make a positive action selfish, and therefore all actions have ulterior motives because all actions are selfish.
This is, in fact, NOT what I believe, and it's not the logical conclusion of my beliefs. You're applying your own beliefs to the equation to assume that it is. Try to analyze what I've said objectively, please.
[[[[I'm saying that even if you buy candy for everyone because you feel that everyone should have candy, you're still doing it because YOU WANT EVERYONE TO HAVE CANDY! Wanting everyone to have candy is not selfish. Wanting everyone to watch you eat candy while they go without in jealousy, that's selfish.
I'm not presupposing why, I'm not saying you get some hidden thrill out of it. I'm saying that you value everyone having candy. . . it doesn't matter WHY you value it, just THAT you value it. Putting others before yourself is not selfish. Valuing the joy of others is not being selfish, it is being selfless.
In my view, your motives don't decide whether the action is good or evil. The action decides. Nonsense. Accidents are not on purpose, intention most certainly does affect actions not only the result but also their meaning. Watch:
If I buy candy for everyone because I want to fuck my girlfriend and watching me be generous gets her horny, the result of that action is that everyone gets free candy, the guy selling the candy gets the money he wanted for it, and I get laid by a woman who honestly -wants- to fuck me, now. Everybody gets what they want and nobody's forced into anything. In my view, this action is undeniably good. Agreed. Thus my point that motive counts.]]]]
You can only take these 2 examples to mean that motive counts by making assumptions about my reason for wanting to fuck my girlfriend. What if all I wanted was to bust a nut, and that's why I bought the candy? Everyone -still- got what they wanted and the result was ultimately the same, but my motive had -only- to do with satiating myself.
Reconcile that. If I only did it because I wanted to bust a nut, but it still worked out to everyone's benefit (i.e. my nut bust just -happened- to work out to the girl getting the same satisfaction even though I really didn't care if she came), how does the motive make the action less good? And I mean for you to answer with a valid, logical reason, not just "cuz the bible said so!" If that's all you got, philosophical discussion isn't for you.
[[[[One of these actions was performed out of what your dogma would call a selfish desire (the desire to get laid) Lies. Getting laid to the mutual benefit of two adults is not a selfish act. Who told you that?
and one was performed out of what your dogma would call a selfless desire (just wanting other people to have what they want), and yet both of these actions had the same ultimate result. Not the same result you got laid in the first one. Not the exact same motive but you were not being "entirely" selfish in either. The selfish act would have been to steel the money for the candy, buy the candy with stolen money, showing the girl how generous you are and getting cred from all the folks you handed out your ill gotten gain from. Then after having sex with the girl telling her to get some sick selfish satisfaction out of making her cry. Then going back to the store and telling him the money was stolen and you pissed on the candy before handing it out to everyone.]]]]
You've assumed that the desire to get laid automatically denotes the desire to provide someone else with pleasure. Maybe I just prefer busting a nut inside of someone to busting a nut inside of a tube sock. Your arguments here make -way- too many assumptions.
Now, when I said "ultimately" the same result, I meant it and I stand by its validity. The particulars of the result were different, but ultimately, EVERYBODY INVOLVED BENEFITTED. That was the point. Regardless of the motive, my actions are either beneficial or detrimental to those involved. That is my standard for good and evil. The results and material nature of one's actions, not the motives behind them.
Lemme try this with an easier example for people to grasp.
If I murdered 6,000,000 Jews because I don't like people that are genetically predisposed to having large, protruding noses, and decided that Jews exemplified that predisposition, the end result is the death of 6,000,000.
If I murdered 6,000,000 Jews because I feel that they are genetically inferior and that purging the genetically inferior will usher in a new era of peace and human advancement, the end result is the death of 6,000,000.
Did my positive motive in the latter example make that action any better than the former? If so, why? And again, don't tell me that the bible says motive matters. I'm not worried about who told you what. I'm worried about what verifiable facts make it true or false.
[[[[If the "magnitude of selfishness", as you view it to be, didn't make any actual difference in what happened, then how could you say that one act was morally superior to the other, and how could you say that the selfishness made the first act evil if everyone benefitted and nobody suffered? pointing out that you can draw up what might be a convoluted scenario in which there may be little to no difference between the selflessness of two selfless acts is not the same as there is no difference between clearly selfish acts and clearly selfless acts.]]]]
Shit, what was this thread called again? OH YEAH! The true root of all evil. The entire post has been about whether or not selfishness is the root of all evil.
Therefore, this convoluted scenario is all I need to make my ultimate point. Let me break this down:
My ultimate point is that all acts are determined by the values of the one acting and therefore all acts are selfish. The fact that all acts are selfish means that SELFISHNESS CAN'T BE USED AS THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL.
Why?
Because I can think of many examples where selfishness, even -your- definition of selfishness, still allowed for an action to benefit everyone. Whether or not you consider them convoluted, they do illustrate that selfishness can result in universal benefit. If selfishness can result in good, then how can you call it the root of all evil?
You might as say that liquid water is evil because people can drown in it. Sure they can. They can also drink it to nourish themselves. Water simply is, just like selfishness simply is. The good or evil, by my philosophy, are dictated by other factors (like whether or not the action RESULTED in good or evil)
[[[[You're still presupposing that selfish and evil are synonyms. No, I'm not. That's your incorrect presumption.
Try to look at it from my perspective before you judge what I'm saying to be a lie. I did.. you didn't. Instead you made up some ludicrious presumptions.]]]]
These aren't simple, ludicrous presumptions, though to the degree that I've misrepresented your position I do apologize.
I stand by the fact that you're looking at my statements through the lenses of your own dogmatic beliefs, though. The fact that you're finding inconsistencies in my argument based on the assumption that good acts born of selfishness automatically imply an ulterior motive proves this.
That assumption doesn't make -my- arguments inconsistent because it's not -my- assumption. It's yours. I make no such assumption. I think that good actions born of selfishness are the good actions that have no ulterior motive and the good actions that -do- have ulterior motives. They're all selfish, and that doesn't presuppose that there's anything dishonest or malicious about them. You're adding that yourself. I'm not.
Heh... I'll debate it if you'll be honest. If I think your being dishonest I'll call you a liar. I'm like that.
I'll start with this: I haven't lied once in this post. Everything I've expressed is honestly what I believe. So far, I have to assume that your definition of a lie is any statement that isn't biblical. You can keep that as your personal definition, but English demands that I say something I know to be false in order to be lying, and English definitions have the monopoly on English definitions. The bible does not.
[[[[Again, you're implying that good acts born of selfishness are the ones that have ulterior motives. That's not at all what I'm saying. Yes, it is.]]]]]
No, it isn't. This is another example of you not being able to think outside the box of your own beliefs. I'm saying that EVEN THE ACTIONS WITH NO ULTERIOR MOTIVE ARE SELFISH. The ones with ulterior motives are selfish. The ones without ulterior motives are selfish. You have to assume that I share your beliefs on the nature of selfishness to believe that I believe that only ulterior motives make a positive action selfish, and therefore all actions have ulterior motives because all actions are selfish.
This is, in fact, NOT what I believe, and it's not the logical conclusion of my beliefs. You're applying your own beliefs to the equation to assume that it is. Try to analyze what I've said objectively, please.
[[[[I'm saying that even if you buy candy for everyone because you feel that everyone should have candy, you're still doing it because YOU WANT EVERYONE TO HAVE CANDY! Wanting everyone to have candy is not selfish. Wanting everyone to watch you eat candy while they go without in jealousy, that's selfish.
I'm not presupposing why, I'm not saying you get some hidden thrill out of it. I'm saying that you value everyone having candy. . . it doesn't matter WHY you value it, just THAT you value it. Putting others before yourself is not selfish. Valuing the joy of others is not being selfish, it is being selfless.
In my view, your motives don't decide whether the action is good or evil. The action decides. Nonsense. Accidents are not on purpose, intention most certainly does affect actions not only the result but also their meaning. Watch:
If I buy candy for everyone because I want to fuck my girlfriend and watching me be generous gets her horny, the result of that action is that everyone gets free candy, the guy selling the candy gets the money he wanted for it, and I get laid by a woman who honestly -wants- to fuck me, now. Everybody gets what they want and nobody's forced into anything. In my view, this action is undeniably good. Agreed. Thus my point that motive counts.]]]]
You can only take these 2 examples to mean that motive counts by making assumptions about my reason for wanting to fuck my girlfriend. What if all I wanted was to bust a nut, and that's why I bought the candy? Everyone -still- got what they wanted and the result was ultimately the same, but my motive had -only- to do with satiating myself.
Reconcile that. If I only did it because I wanted to bust a nut, but it still worked out to everyone's benefit (i.e. my nut bust just -happened- to work out to the girl getting the same satisfaction even though I really didn't care if she came), how does the motive make the action less good? And I mean for you to answer with a valid, logical reason, not just "cuz the bible said so!" If that's all you got, philosophical discussion isn't for you.
[[[[One of these actions was performed out of what your dogma would call a selfish desire (the desire to get laid) Lies. Getting laid to the mutual benefit of two adults is not a selfish act. Who told you that?
and one was performed out of what your dogma would call a selfless desire (just wanting other people to have what they want), and yet both of these actions had the same ultimate result. Not the same result you got laid in the first one. Not the exact same motive but you were not being "entirely" selfish in either. The selfish act would have been to steel the money for the candy, buy the candy with stolen money, showing the girl how generous you are and getting cred from all the folks you handed out your ill gotten gain from. Then after having sex with the girl telling her to get some sick selfish satisfaction out of making her cry. Then going back to the store and telling him the money was stolen and you pissed on the candy before handing it out to everyone.]]]]
You've assumed that the desire to get laid automatically denotes the desire to provide someone else with pleasure. Maybe I just prefer busting a nut inside of someone to busting a nut inside of a tube sock. Your arguments here make -way- too many assumptions.
Now, when I said "ultimately" the same result, I meant it and I stand by its validity. The particulars of the result were different, but ultimately, EVERYBODY INVOLVED BENEFITTED. That was the point. Regardless of the motive, my actions are either beneficial or detrimental to those involved. That is my standard for good and evil. The results and material nature of one's actions, not the motives behind them.
Lemme try this with an easier example for people to grasp.
If I murdered 6,000,000 Jews because I don't like people that are genetically predisposed to having large, protruding noses, and decided that Jews exemplified that predisposition, the end result is the death of 6,000,000.
If I murdered 6,000,000 Jews because I feel that they are genetically inferior and that purging the genetically inferior will usher in a new era of peace and human advancement, the end result is the death of 6,000,000.
Did my positive motive in the latter example make that action any better than the former? If so, why? And again, don't tell me that the bible says motive matters. I'm not worried about who told you what. I'm worried about what verifiable facts make it true or false.
[[[[If the "magnitude of selfishness", as you view it to be, didn't make any actual difference in what happened, then how could you say that one act was morally superior to the other, and how could you say that the selfishness made the first act evil if everyone benefitted and nobody suffered? pointing out that you can draw up what might be a convoluted scenario in which there may be little to no difference between the selflessness of two selfless acts is not the same as there is no difference between clearly selfish acts and clearly selfless acts.]]]]
Shit, what was this thread called again? OH YEAH! The true root of all evil. The entire post has been about whether or not selfishness is the root of all evil.
Therefore, this convoluted scenario is all I need to make my ultimate point. Let me break this down:
My ultimate point is that all acts are determined by the values of the one acting and therefore all acts are selfish. The fact that all acts are selfish means that SELFISHNESS CAN'T BE USED AS THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL.
Why?
Because I can think of many examples where selfishness, even -your- definition of selfishness, still allowed for an action to benefit everyone. Whether or not you consider them convoluted, they do illustrate that selfishness can result in universal benefit. If selfishness can result in good, then how can you call it the root of all evil?
You might as say that liquid water is evil because people can drown in it. Sure they can. They can also drink it to nourish themselves. Water simply is, just like selfishness simply is. The good or evil, by my philosophy, are dictated by other factors (like whether or not the action RESULTED in good or evil)
[[[[You're still presupposing that selfish and evil are synonyms. No, I'm not. That's your incorrect presumption.
Try to look at it from my perspective before you judge what I'm saying to be a lie. I did.. you didn't. Instead you made up some ludicrious presumptions.]]]]
These aren't simple, ludicrous presumptions, though to the degree that I've misrepresented your position I do apologize.
I stand by the fact that you're looking at my statements through the lenses of your own dogmatic beliefs, though. The fact that you're finding inconsistencies in my argument based on the assumption that good acts born of selfishness automatically imply an ulterior motive proves this.
That assumption doesn't make -my- arguments inconsistent because it's not -my- assumption. It's yours. I make no such assumption. I think that good actions born of selfishness are the good actions that have no ulterior motive and the good actions that -do- have ulterior motives. They're all selfish, and that doesn't presuppose that there's anything dishonest or malicious about them. You're adding that yourself. I'm not.
Click.
