If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Helping others is socialism!
Comments
If you're talking purely physical resources, such as time, food, fuel, living space, and such, then yes, altruism comes at the cost of personal utility.
However, if you consider personal utility to include your relationship with other people, then altruism may very well increase your personal utility. You may gain happiness and improved social stature at the cost of giving someone, say, an hour of your time or a gallon of gas.
basic decencysentiment that most people share that says that that is a reprehensible thing to do.Wait wait. DOn't lump this guy in with Objectivists that is insulting he's a Fundimetnalist.
Define "decent" and tell me why your definition is correct.
YES!
Why?
However, if you consider personal utility to include your relationship
with other people, then altruism may very well increase your personal
utility. You may gain happiness and improved social stature at the cost
of giving someone, say, an hour of your time or a gallon of gas.
So if no one finds out about my murdering and raping and stealing, and as long as I don't do them to people I personally know and care for, there's nothing wrong with them?
What....
as long as I don't do them to people I personally know and care for,
there's nothing wrong with them?
Well, I think that's wrong too, and it's nice that we agree on that, even if we disagree on why it's wrong.
You can talk about impulses all you like, but people wouldn't steal or kill - ever - if the supposed altruistic impulse were as strong as you seem to think.
And even if they would, that still doesn't make them any less wrong in doing so, so why do the people who are criminalizing such actions have any right to restrict those people?
kill - ever - if the supposed altruistic impulse were as strong as you
seem to think.
Different people are different. Some people are very nice; others are complete assholes. You know this.
So the "altruistic impulse" varies from person to person.
^ What the heck is this supposed to mean?
Just to make things clear, the Bible doesn't teach anything about gays being freaks or otherwise drastically different from other people. It just says that it's a sin to sleep with someone of the same gender. I'm perfectly fine with gay people as people, just not so much with the actual "homosexual" part. Make no mistake, I think that the Westboro Baptist Church and other such people are going about this completely the wrong way - hate the sin, love the sinner, and all that. I'm sure you've heard it before.
While I'm uncertain how applying the Bible as an absolute measure would correct it, I should like to hear your viewpoint as you are more familiar with it than I am.
Well, the Bible already is the underlying basis for many of our laws. Or rather, the Judeo-Christian system of ethics is, which got its start from Scripture. As far as correcting the flaws in the system goes, I should make it clear here and now that no matter what law code we adopt, we're never going to completely eliminate evil or crime. That's just something we have to deal with thanks to human nature. But according to the Bible, we're also not supposed to give evil free reign.
In any case, the law is not meant for the betterment of the people, but rather, as I touched on before, for the restraint of evil and wrongdoing (which isn't to say it's simply a necessary evil and not a good thing in and of itself). The mistake has been made several times throughout history, really - the mistake of thinking that anything we can do or enforce will make us "good people." It is, of course, what eventually sparked the Protestant Reformation. The only way to effect a change in the people's motive for following the law is to effect a change in their hearts, rather than hoping to force that change through legislation.
Also, thanks to you, too for making me think as well, taking the time to lay out your points, and not just calling me a moron or a sociopath.
[Re: rape, murder, etc.]
One logical reason is that we're social people and it's in our best interest to keep society stable and prosperous. Rape and murder tend to undermine that.
Also we mightn't emotionally handle it. The thought of murdering or raping somebody makes me squeamish. Why do I feel this way? Dunno. Seeing people get hurt makes me uncomfortable for the same "reason" chocolate makes me happy; it's just who I am. And it's just who we all are, theist or atheist.
I think the Judeo-Christian system of ethics is just a compiling of generally common ethics traditions that people had already been using.
Rules against murder, assault, and property damage tend to pervade cultures and times.
This one wonders since when Bible endorsed capitalism? Again, this one is not arguing about merit of economic systems per se, but for one who bases their morality on religion to also believe that rich should get richer and poor left to die seems somewhat weird, if for some reason not unusual. I know that you have said hat it is not state's role to promote moral behaviour (and I agree with it), but do you hold the same opinion about other instances of trying to use state to impose values on people? Can a state forbid people from gay marriage, abortion, teen sex etc but not force people to share wealth?
I do not presume to know what your position are - please accept my apologies it it appeared that way - but if one's answer to these questions is different, then it seems to me that there is an inconsistency. I can be wrong about it, of course.
As for morality - thinking that without God there is no basis to be moral is oversimplification. Why this one consirers murder, rape and theft to be wrong? Because she does not wish to be murdered, raped or stolen from, and so would prefer to live in society where noone is permitted to do so to her. Which of course means that she is not permitted to do such things also.
From the point of view of evolution, acting for immediate self-gain might be beneficial for individual's survival. However, it can and often does interfere with survival of population. There is no contradiction here - "selfish" member has a higher chances of survival in comparison with "selfless" members, but enough such "selfish" members - and the whole population dies, "selfish" along with it. While more "selfless" population survives. That's why most people (sociopathy is a medical condition for a reason) have inherent capabilities for empathy, sense of fairness and cooperation with their group - populations which did not have these qualities did not survive.
Of course there is a temptation to both have the cake and eat it - to live in cooperative society and at the same time exploit it. That's why we have criminals. There is some interesting research on this problem in games theory, such as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat Overall it seemed to be that while being "selfish" around "cooperative" players is fast and easy winning strategy, it causes others to adopt the same, and soon there is noone to prey upon, and sum of the game is dropping to almost zero. While a disposition for cooperation ensures less individual games won while having much greater score for each player. Although blind cooperation ensures being preyed upon, so recuperation strategy is one of the best overall.
There are many other variations, of course, and it's quite fascinating to read.
I'm sorry, I just can't come to any conclusion other than sociopath when threat of eternal torment is literally all that's keeping you from rape and murder.
Yes. The difference is that doing the former is a matter of stopping evil, while the latter is a matter (heheheh) of trying to force goodness. Again, it's not about making people do the right thing, it's about keeping them from doing the wrong thing.
Of course there is a temptation to both have the cake and eat it - to live in cooperative society and at the same time exploit it. That's why we have criminals. There is some interesting research on this problem in games theory, such as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat Overall it seemed to be that while being "selfish" around "cooperative"
players is fast and easy winning strategy, it causes others to adopt the same, and soon there is noone to prey upon, and sum of the game is dropping to almost zero. While a disposition for cooperation ensures less individual games won while having much greater score for each player. Although blind cooperation ensures being preyed upon, so recuperation strategy is one of the best overall.
Okay, to put it on a larger scale... were the slave traders in the past few centuries in the right when they abducted African natives and did horrible things to them for their own benefit? It could be argued that the ends justified the means, since eventually a great deal of slaves were freed and got the chance to get an education, which they would have never gotten had they not been abducted from their homes. In this case, not only could selfishness be justified in a world without a God, but it could also be said that it helped society.
What about one tribe attacking and wiping out another for that tribe's land and resources? It's not like society is going to come grinding to a halt because some insignificant group of about a hundred was killed and their land taken.
And what about killing the homeless and others who have fallen on hard times? You're just putting them out of their misery and removing a drain on society, right?
I'm sorry, I just can't come to any conclusion other than sociopath when
threat of eternal torment is literally all that's keeping you from rape
and murder.
What makes you think that fear is what motivates me? Have you considered the possibility that I want to obey God?
More importantly, do you have an objective standard for morality?
Can you prove that it's not?
But I don't want to get into an argument over whether God is real or not. What I have a problem with right now, is that I don't see what gives anyone the right to force those beliefs on others. Believe that homosexuality is evil? Sure, you have the right to think that. Want to tell them that you think that homosexuality is evil? Sure, you can do that too. But prevent them from getting married because you think it's evil? What gives you that right?
I've gotta get to bed for now.
That's all well and good for Christians, but to an atheist, or a Buddhist, or anyone who doesn't believe in the Christian God, that's like saying you better be good because Santa said so.