Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Full exploration of the definition on the table is PREREQUISITE to building a shared framework that will make (communication of) agreement (or specific disagreement) possible.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So me telling you to support your claims is the equivalence to me sending you on a random goose chase leading to nowhere?
It is when I've done so before with no new result. You do it this time if you care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Don’t send me on some random goose chase leading to nowhere,
I won't if you don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Like look for yourself. I'm not going to trouble looking back through our conversation with that kind of depth you if you are going to be impossible to communicate with. Why would I bother?
Created:
-->
@janesix
You would have to define religious experience before I could answer with any confidence but if you mean a genuine supernatural event then no o do not believe so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
twisting and turningWhat did I twist and turn, specifically?
At a minimum every time you agreed to a definition and then declared that something which fits that definition cannot be referred to by the term in question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Sum1hugme
Valuing your personal comfort (avoiding pain) is functionally indistinguishable from valuing your own life.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If all you want is to prove everyone "wrong", well then you can make any statement "wrong" simply by twisting and turning and arguing semantics and refusing to except their definitions.
You could do that. Won't bring you any closer to the truth and it won't make you "right" but you sure can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If you ever become interested in the actual ideas I am communicating over a false sense of victory drop me a line.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You are missing the point. I can only surmise that you are doing so purposefully.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Are you the least bit curious why I think we can only define an actions as selfish through the motive?
It is because actions are not in and of themselves CHEIFLY concerned with anything. Only people are concerned with anything at all as far as I know so when you say an act is selfish or a motive is selfish what you are really saying is that a person is being selfish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Why do you imagine I need to tell myself anything and why would I do so by telling you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You have not demonstrated a flaw in the structure of the argument. All your objections are tangential and I tried to address them anyway. I have been as generous an interlocutor as possible and you have done nothing but put up roadblocks to honest and open communication. You must examine what exactly you are trying to do here. Are you trying to understand and be understood or just to "win" whatever it is you personally consider that to be?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I am asking the question again because it has not yet been answered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How do you determine what an action is CHEIFLY concerned with?
I know of no way of doing this other than evaluating the motive. If you don't like that method then you will have to suggest an alternative because I don't know of any alternative methods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
One is contingent upon the other AND in selling stolen goods it is likely that the seller is CHEIFLY concerned with personal profit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That is your argument? That if anyone benefits in any way then no matter how callous and uncaring an act is it is not selfish?
So if I commit an armed robbery and take what doesn't belong to me for my own enrichment then so long as my fence also benefits (through the sale of my illicit goods) then I haven't done anything selfish?
If that isn't what you are saying then exactly what are you saying?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No I am not asking the difference between doing your job and not doing your job.
I am asking what is the practical difference between professional criminals performing selfish actions and doing their job.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Please explain the practical difference between the two in order to justify this case of hairsplitting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don't understand your objection. If all members of a criminal organization benefit from the selfish actions of the other members then it is possible to benefit from the selfish actions of other people. It seems like you agree that criminals in a criminal organization benefit from the selfish actions of other criminals so I'm not sure what your point is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
P1 Criminal organizations are predicated upon mutually beneficial selfish action between a cadre of people.
P2 Criminal organizations exist.
C It is possible to benefit from the selfish actions of others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I am suggesting that the MOTIVATION determines whether or not an action even IS for someone.
Someone can profit by an action that was not performed FOR them.
If I serve soup to the poor the act is serving soup. I don't however have to do it FOR the poor. I could be serving that soup for any number of reasons including doing it under duress.
IF a sullen teenager is forced to volunteer for a soup kitchen under threat of being grounded are they really being selfless? Or are they still self absorbed and merely doing what they calculate will lead to the best possible outcome for THEMSELVES?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Well as evolution is a process guided by the laws of physics I think we can assume there is a sort of maximum complexity limit after which complexity breaks down becoming simpler. From singularity to complex universe filled with galactic clusters to heat death. Singularity and heat death are not complex states if I understand the terms properly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Look if the definition of selfish is being CHEIFLY concerned with personal profit or pleasure how do we determine what an action is CHEIFLY concerned with?
My proposal is that UNLESS you have a better way of evaluating actions we make this determination based on the MOTIVATIONS behind the action.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Roy goes for a walk.
Was that a selfish or a selfless action?
Jim stole a loaf of bread.
Was that a selfish or a selfless action?
Danny gave an old woman help across the street.
Was this a selfish or a selfless action?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What burden of proof? You agreed to the definition. If something is done chiefly for the purposes of personal profit or pleasure then it definitionally selfish. If I give to charity ONLY because it puts me in a more favorable tax bracket then I am not chiefly concerned with the charity itself but only by how I might profit from the change in taxes I will pay.
IF you disagree with how I am making the determination you will have to explain what you think a selfish act looks like and why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Ok assuming that is true what is our take away?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It is interconnected. If I am only being "good" because I expect profits and pleasure and I wouldn't bother being "good" without profit and pleasure to motivate me then I am CHIEFLY concerned with personal profit and pleasure.
That is the definition of being selfish. It doesn't stop being selfish if you also by coincidence profit or are pleased.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
And how shall we determine if an action is selfish if we do not examine the motive?
You keep claiming they are seperate discussions when in reality the selfish/lessness of an action is PREDICATED on the selfish/lessness of the motive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
At the very least increased chance of birth defects yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It is not for someone else if it is motivated by self interest. If I help you pick apples for an apple pie I am doing it for pie not for you. If I give you free soup for the chance to look good on camera serving some poor smoe soup it isnot for you it is for a photo op.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I do not recall conceding that providing for someone else's needs can never be selfish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
The next question the above is;1} is that simple-to-complex evolution,2} complex-to-simple evolution,3} lateral evolution that is neither more complex or less complex?
Unknown at outset. In retrospect it appears evolution tends towards more and more complex organisms over time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
All hypothetical imperatives have the problem, where if their IF principle is rejected, then they can opt out of being moral.
Can you detail a moral system that cannot be simply opted out of by disagreeing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I think one major problem is that this ethic can't apply to people who don't care about being alive.
So what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How shall we determine if an act is being performed CHEIFLY for one's own profit and pleasure without first examining what MOTIVATES the action?
This is a serious question especially since you have offered no alternative means of making the determination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
action cancels out the motive.
This is nonsense. Utter tosh. If I help you pick apples because I want to be helpful then picking apples is selfless. If I am picking them solely to convince you to bake me an apple pie and my chief concern is my pie then that is selfish.
If I work at a soup kitchen as a form of charity that is selfless. If I work at a soup kitchen because I want recognition for my "good works" and my chief concern is my reputation that is selfish. Actions are neither selfless nor selfish on their own devoid of context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Fine for sake of the discussion I’ll concede to that point, but my argumentBut it isn’t chiefly in one’s own profit or pleasure if it’s at the cost of providing for SOMEONE ELSE.still stands.
It is if your MOTIVES are selfish. If you are providing for another's needs CHIEFLY because you expect to profit from them somehow (even just for their company going forward since social interaction is a necessity) would you disagree that it would be selfish?
I am not arguing that selfishness is the ONLY reason to engage in secular morality only that BEING selfish is not a good reason to have no moral standard.
Bottom line EVEN IF you are only in this for yourself you should still consider caring for and about others BECAUSE it is essentially self care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How do we determine if an ACTION is selfish if not by the MOTIVE behind it?This is a separate narrative that I don’t care to get into right now.
Well in order to determine whether or not an ACTION is selfish we must have some way of determining what makes an ACTION selfish. We are going to have to get into it right now or we will not be able to discuss the selfishness of any action whatever. Again a break down in communication and again specifically because you are putting up roadblocks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How do we determine if an ACTION is selfish if not by the MOTIVE behind it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Selfish-(of a person, action , or MOTIVE)
Not ignoring anything but we are discussing motive in this case.
Created: