Moral choice

[Zhangfei]

I just did for my own amusement, since your response hardly had anything to do with my initial statement. Agape love isn't the same as 'normal love', that you chose to call it love doesn't matter.

Agape MEANS love. You can't distinguish the four types and say one is "more right.

This is the first answer I got when I googled "selfish definition": devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

Finish the bolding please. You just proved my argument that being selfish means getting more than you actually deserve and regardless of others getting what they deserve. Self-interest is not selfish.

[Deleted]

What about being empathetical towards the 100 people? Saving them says nothing about not being empathetical towards the loved one, it just says the person who'd take that choice has an empathetical range that reaches beyond their own nose.

It's not normal to feel even anywhere close to the same amount of empathy to unknown people as your loved one. This shows that you are unable to feel as strongly for your close ones as most people are, not that you care that much about everyone. If you did feel that strongly about strangers you'd kill yourself due to the suffering you'd feel of being strongly empathic to every person dying (I've had periods where I was extremly sad, simply due to me thinking too much about all the suffering in the world, if you are way more emphatic than that to strangers you wouldn't be able to put up with it anymore).

There is no such thing as a human condition. "That's human" is an argument people use to justify their own beliefs by saying it occurs naturally in the whole human species. This poll is obvious evidence that there's nothing human (i.e., naturally right), about saving 1 over 100 or 100 over 1.

Alright, lets call it 'normal' then, and lets call someone being a sociopath 'abnormal'. It's a fact that large majority (proven by this thread, and I'm quite certain that the actual number would be way higher than it is here) would chose to save their loved one. You have different values than a 'normal' human does, assuming that this discrepancy in value is significant enough you'd usually be considered abnormal and diagnosed. If most humans on the planet were sociopaths being what we currently call 'normal' would obviously be seen as abnormal, this can be said for most mental diagnosis, they differ/lack something compared to the average person.

Love isn't about finding someone you just happen to like and then completely changing yourself to cater to them. It's about finding someone you agree with enough to not require a complete character change for the relationship to work.

This isn't love, by any definition apart from yours. It's getting along with someone. Since you don't love someone I guess your reasoning makes sense.

---------- Post added 2013-01-27 at 04:00 PM ----------

Agape MEANS love. You can't distinguish the four types and say one is "more right.

I can sure as hell say that the feelings and strength behind all four types aren't the same.

Finish the bolding please. You just proved my argument that being selfish means getting more than you actually deserve and regardless of others getting what they deserve. Self-interest is not selfish.

No, that's not what selfish means. Read the quote. Self-interest and selfishness is almost the same thing and a slight level difference (bad word, but I can't come up with anything more suitable) at best. Neither means that you take more than you deserve, the small difference might be in how much you value others interests but they are secondary in both cases.

[Wikiy]

Alright, lets call it 'normal' then, and lets call someone being a sociopath 'abnormal'. It's a fact that large majority (proven by this thread, and I'm quite certain that the actual number would be way higher than it is here) would chose to save their loved one. You have different values than a 'normal' human does, assuming that this discrepancy in value is significant enough you'd usually be considered abnormal and diagnosed. If most humans on the planet were sociopaths being what we currently call 'normal' would obviously be seen as abnormal, this can be said for most mental diagnosis.

The fact 80% would choose 1 over 100 doesn't mean that's normal. It's like saying white or heterosexual is normal and black or homosexual isn't, respectively.

This isn't love, by any definition apart from yours. It's getting along with someone. Since you don't love someone I guess your reasoning makes sense.

What makes you think I don't love someone? I just apparently don't love them fanatically enough to fall under your definition of being in love with someone.

[Deleted]

The fact 80% would choose 1 over 100 doesn't mean that's normal. It's like saying white or heterosexual is normal and black or homosexual isn't, respectively.

That's actually pretty much what normal means^^.

Where you draw the difference between normal and abnormal is open for discussion and depends on how you define abnormal (the psychological definition of abnormal is different from the everyday), by some everyday definitions very intelligent people and homosexuals could be considered 'abnormal'. Some criteria for abnormality (the psychological definition, which also is open for discussion) is statistical infrequency (quite close to the everyday definition of abnormality) and a different view on morality (what we are discussing here).

I don't know you well enough to (with certainty) say that you are abnormal in the psychological sense, but your opinion can definitely be seen as abnormal by the everyday definition.

What makes you think I don't love someone? I just apparently don't love them fanatically enough to fall under your definition of being in love with someone.

"Love isn't about finding someone you just happen to like and then completely changing yourself to cater to them. It's about finding someone you agree with enough to not require a complete character change for the relationship to work. "

There's no universal definition for love, but this isn't anywhere close to any definition. This is what you call getting along with someone, if you prefer to use the word 'love' to describe that I guess that's your choice, but other people won't understand that this is what you mean.

[Zhangfei]

I can sure as hell say that the feelings and strength behind all four types aren't the same.

You sure can! You can't prove it though.

No, that's not what selfish means. Read the quote. Self-interest and selfishness is almost the same thing and a slight level difference (bad word, but I can't come up with anything more suitable) at best. Neither means that you take more than you deserve, the small difference might be in how much you value others interests but they are secondary in both cases.

I did read the quote. As much as dictionary definitions are not valid in philosophical debate, I played your game and bolded the significant part to show that selfishness is not the same as self-interest.

Selfish is intrinsically negative, self-interest is a metaphysical necessity of any self-aware being.

[Wikiy]

There's no universal definition for love, but this isn't anywhere close to any definition. This is what you call getting along with someone, if you prefer to use the word 'love' to describe that I guess that's your choice, but other people won't understand that this is what you mean.

I'm not really saying that's the real definition of love, I just don't think that one needs to change their character at all to love someone. Or to love them enough to be willing to change their character in the future.

[Themius]

beloved one.

[oxymoronic]

the self-righteous people in this thread make me sick

[skrump]

Save the one you love as it is directly beneficial to you.

100 dead people on the otherhand simply means their will be 100 job openings, a lot of apartments for rent and 100 less potential idiots you got to worry about coming in contact with later on, not to mention the benefit to nature considering how much waste/pollution a single person creates in a lifetime, might suck for the families of those people but hey not my fault the family wasn't their to save them.

Guess you could consider my view that of a opportunist with a positive outlook.

[IfOnly]

No, if you do nothing you they all die, so you can only take positive action, in which case its personal choice, you are not actively putting the majority in danger, just not taking action to remove them from it.


How about this:
You are standing on a bridge when you notice 10 people on the tracks ahead of you, with a train approaching from the other side of the bridge, the driver cannot see the people on the tracks and will run them over if nothing is done to alter the situation. You notice a person next to you on the side of the bridge, pushing them onto the tracks ahead of the train will cause the train to stop with only that person killed, thereby saving 10 other people, do you push the person?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs0E69krO_Q

Why not step in front of the train yourself?

I wouldn't but you know some possibly maybe would?

[mvaliz]

Five minutes is a long time.

I'd do my best to warn the 100 people, hoping they can do something to help themselves.

I'd also inform my most beloved that in order for me to save them I have to make that sacrifice. The reason I'd do this is to let them have a say-so in this if that's the way they'd go or not. Of course, that could also mean perpetual guilt - but the way I figure it I'll be feeling pretty damn guilty even if I didn't tell them, and would either let it eat me alive - or I'd tell them later, which leads to worse guilt AND me keeping a secret from them guilt.

[Deleted]

You sure can! You can't prove it though.

Just like you can't prove the opposite, having the exact same feelings in entirely different situations is illogical though (which makes me think that this should be the assumption until proven otherwise), since you are religious I doubt that something being illogical ever stopped you though:P.

I did read the quote. As much as dictionary definitions are not valid in philosophical debate, I played your game and bolded the significant part to show that selfishness is not the same as self-interest.

Selfish is intrinsically negative, self-interest is a metaphysical necessity of any self-aware being.

Afaik you were the one who started to bring up the meaning of selfish vs self-interest, and that's definitely not a philosophical debate. To me both selfishness and self-interest is necessary for any being and very similar, selfishness is just a more negative spin on it. It's incredibly obvious that we are refering to the same thing.

I'm not really saying that's the real definition of love, I just don't think that one needs to change their character at all to love someone. Or to love them enough to be willing to change their character in the future.

I don't think you need to be willing to change your character to love someone (I think most would be willing to try though), I'm simply saying that getting along with someone isn't the same as love.

[Zhangfei]

Just like you can't prove the opposite, having the exact same feelings in entirely different situations is illogical though (which makes me think that this should be the assumption until proven otherwise), since you are religious I doubt that something being illogical ever stopped you though:P.

Nothing inherently illogical about my beliefs. My point is that people act on the opposite. People's feelings may alter but their thinking might not. Have you ever played a strategy video game angry? Sad? Exhausted? You can still make the same decisions regardless of emotional state.

Afaik you were the one who started to bring up the meaning of selfish vs self-interest, and that's definitely not a philosophical debate.

Definitions are inherently a philosophical debate. Who gets to decide what complicated words mean? I no more trust dictionary writers than anyone else, as they're flawed humans. If words had pinned on meanings that could never mean different things, language would never evolve and each dictionary would be the exact same.

To me both selfishness and self-interest is necessary for any being and very similar, selfishness is just a more negative spin on it. It's incredibly obvious that we are refering to the same thing.

Not to me. Me getting breakfast because I'm hungry is self-interest. It has no negative component. Me stealing other people's breakfasts to stuff myself is selfish. Calling everyone selfish is implying love does not exist and we cannot be altruistic.

[Deleted]

Nothing inherently illogical about my beliefs.

Most religions are inherently illogical, that religious people don't admit this isn't new. Do you believe that the content of the Bible/Quaran are gods words?

My point is that people act on the opposite. People's feelings may alter but their thinking might not.

Clarify.

Have you ever played a strategy video game angry? Sad? Exhausted? You can still make the same decisions regardless of emotional state.

Yes, I play significantly worse in all of those situations. It's been proven that people make less rational decisions if they are in an emotional state.

Definitions are inherently a philosophical debate. Who gets to decide what complicated words mean? I no more trust dictionary writers than anyone else, as they're flawed humans. If words had pinned on meanings that could never mean different things, language would never evolve and each dictionary would be the exact same.

Who gets to decide definitions is indeed a philosophical debate. Personally I'd argue that the way the majority uses the word is what it means (the meaning can obviously vary based on your location, which makes the internet even more troublesome), and usually dictionary writers try to write this definition (or their interpretation of it). 'Proving' the meaning of a word is obviously impossible.

Not to me. Me getting breakfast because I'm hungry is self-interest. It has no negative component. Me stealing other people's breakfasts to stuff myself is selfish. Calling everyone selfish is implying love does not exist and we cannot be altruistic.

Almost everything has a negative component, couldn't you have given that food to someone else? Continuing this specific discussion (meaning of selfishness vs self-interest) is pointless though, by your definition of selfishness vs self-interest I agree with you.

[Zhangfei]

Most religions are inherently illogical, that religious people don't admit this isn't new. Do you believe that the content of the Bible/Quaran are gods words?

Religion is a banned topic on these boards. Let's not bother with this.

Clarify.

People make decisions based on agape love daily, like Mother Theresa. Whether you agree that she is moral is irrelevant, it was her motivation to help others. What about people going on missions to build houses? Joining the Peace Corps? People like doing good because they think people deserve it.

Yes, I play significantly worse in all of those situations. It's been proven that people make less rational decisions if they are in an emotional state.

Indeed, if they are not trained to think logically.

Who gets to decide definitions is indeed a philosophical debate. Personally I'd argue that the way the majority uses the word is what it means (the meaning can obviously vary based on your location, which makes the internet even more troublesome), and usually dictionary writers try to write this definition (or their interpretation of it). 'Proving' the meaning of a word is obviously impossible.

Well we agree here. The problem is when you start getting into a meaty discussion and a popular-use word starts getting really looked at.

Almost everything has a negative component, couldn't you have given that food to someone else? Continuing this speciifc discussion (selfishness vs self-interest) is pointless though, by your definition of selfishness vs self-interest I agree with you.

I could but then I'd starve to death, preventing me from ever doing good again, making it not negative.

[Deleted]

People make decisions based on agape love daily, like Mother Theresa. Whether you agree that she is moral is irrelevant, it was her motivation to help others. What about people going on missions to build houses? Joining the Peace Corps? People like doing good because they think people deserve it.

Self-satisfaction for doing what they feel is 'good'? I help people, but I'm aware of the fact that I feel good doing it and if I felt like shit afterwards I wouldn't be as inclined to.

Indeed, if they are not trained to think logically.

Doesn't matter, it's a natural response to be 'less logical' in a situation like that. You can try to remain logical, and training can obviously decrease the impact but even the best trained soldiers know that the impact is there.

I could but then I'd starve to death, preventing me from ever doing good again, making it not negative.

And the guy who (in theory) died (or just got sick/were hungry) because he didn't get your food? That's still a negative consequence for someone (excluding that he probably would have been able to do good things as well, if he wasn't dead:P). I'm also quite certain that you are eating more than you need to necessarily survive. You don't need a computer, a home or even clothes, that money could've been spent on many meals for the poor. I can't think of an action that doesn't have a negative consequence for someone, that's the way it is.

[Zhangfei]

Self-satisfaction for doing what they feel is 'good'? I help people, but I'm aware of the fact that I feel good doing it and if I felt like shit afterwards I wouldn't be as inclined to.

Yes, but do you feel good because it's the good thing to do? I don't get why self-satisfaction means it's any less a loving act.

Doesn't matter, it's a natural response to be 'less logical' in a situation like that. You can try to remain logical, and training can obviously decrease the impact but even the best trained soldiers know that the impact is there.

And one can compensate for that!

And the guy who (in theory) died (or just got sick/were hungry) because he didn't get your food? That's still a negative consequence for someone (excluding that he probably would have been able to do good things as well, if he wasn't dead:P). I'm also quite certain that you are eating more than you need to necessarily survive. You don't need a computer, a home or even clothes, that money could've been spent on many meals for the poor. I can't think of an action that doesn't have a negative consequence for someone, that's the way it is.

Right, but what you're saying is that the only way I can be happy is to give my stuff away to someone who then has the stuff but I don't, causing a cyclical process. It's entirely nonsense. Life is not a constant merry-go-round of giving things because it wouldn't actually be doing any good. Same as me dying to replace another dying.

Most actions humans perform are morally irrelevant.

[Deleted]

First one. I don't really care about morality in a general sense. I'll act selfishly in my own interests in all cases. I will help somebody if it benefits me in the future but passing by a stranger on the street getting beaten up and I would feel nothing. One of the minor perks of not caring about people is that I also don't mind people thinking I'm immoral, they're meaningless to me.

[Deleted]

Yes, but do you feel good because it's the good thing to do? I don't get why self-satisfaction means it's any less a loving act.

I'm merly stating that the reason for doing 'good' things is self-satisfaction. I think that the reason we feel self-satisfaction for these things is natural, and is to encourage us into doing altruistic things. You can obviously consider this love, but for me that's not the same feeling as I get when I'm with my loved one.

And one can compensate for that!

To an extent, but no one is unaffected. May I ask what your reason is for trying to convince me that peoples decision-making isn't influenced by their emotions is? Even if humans could be trained to compensate for every emotion (hardly realistic to me) this would still not be the case for anything but a selected few individuals.

Right, but what you're saying is that the only way I can be happy is to give my stuff away to someone who then has the stuff but I don't, causing a cyclical process. It's entirely nonsense. Life is not a constant merry-go-round of giving things because it wouldn't actually be doing any good. Same as me dying to replace another dying.

Most actions humans perform are morally irrelevant.

Giving away all your clothes/food is going to an extreme, but making sure that everyone has what they need isn't. Do you really don't think that selling your third pair of shoes and buying food for the poor wouldn't "actually be doing any good"? Where do you draw the line? Every action has a reaction (poor Newton, this is not what he had in mind when he came up with that quote).

[Wikiy]

I'm merly stating that the reason for doing 'good' things is self-satisfaction. I think that the reason we feel self-satisfaction for these things is natural, and is to encourage us into doing altruistic things.

I agree that the natural mechanism of people feeling good after doing good things is there for evolutionary reasons, but I still don't think it's the only or prime reason in most cases of altrustic acts.

You can obviously consider this love, but for me that's not the same feeling as I get when I'm with my loved one.

It's love, just not romantic love, and it doesn't feel the same for obvious reasons.