Abortion

[genocidal]

Lucon is confusing rationality with utility.

[froedrick]

I pity if his parents ever get into financial trouble, when he's older and it's not 'rational' enough for him to help them out.

[syzygy]

i can't point out a flaw in your opinions.

but 2 + 2 = 4 because numbers are man-made. i can say 2 + 2 = 3, such that 3 = 4, and looky here, i'm logically correct.

[Lucon]

Lucon is confusing rationality with utility.

No, I'm not. Rationality is the ability to reason, utility has to do with how useful something is. Now, if you're implying I have some type of utilitarian morality, you'd be incorrect as well. I don't have any morality, I'm a hardcore rationalistic egoist.

[Lucon]

i can't point out a flaw in your opinions.

but 2 + 2 = 4 because numbers are man-made. i can say 2 + 2 = 3, such that 3 = 4, and looky here, i'm logically correct.

You completely missed both of the points I was trying to make.

[K2Grey]

First of all, I will assume that Lucon is not talking for the purpose of proving how detached, skeptical, and experienced he is about the world, although this is a very good possibility.

Money is not useful in and of itself - it's just paper in its own form. What makes it valuable is the fact that you can get items that you want with it. So money has a certain degree of utility. Having $500 may be more useful to you than having $100, however, having 25 billion dollars is not much more utility than having 5 billion dollars, unless you intend to take over the world or something along those lines.

Under these situations, if you only have use for $50 and you have $100, then the remaining $50 can be given to someone else who has use for the $50. In that case you aren't really losing much, since you didn't intend to spend the $50, whereas the person who gets the $50 may have much to gain (for example, the ability to not starve to death). The $50 in this case is surely being put to much better use than if you burned it. You may feel that the world revolves around you and that there is no difference between money leaving your possession and money being destroyed, but while you may be unique in this respect, the world does not revolve around anyone else and so this point is valid for them.

Other points include the golden rule and the idea that humans, as a whole, are better off if they help each other out than if they all acted solely to increase their own well-being. I think it can be stated with some confidence that the overall level of happiness is higher when all humans help each other and display what are generally regarded as ethical standards and altruism, than if all humans all acted solely for their immediate self-benefit.

[Lucon]

First of all, I will assume that Lucon is not talking for the purpose of proving how detached, skeptical, and experienced he is about the world, although this is a very good possibility.

I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm only trying to show everyone how wrong they are. Although it's true that I'm detached and skeptical, which are great ways to be if you want to come to logical conclusions.

Money is not useful in and of itself - it's just paper in its own form. What makes it valuable is the fact that you can get items that you want with it. So money has a certain degree of utility. Having $500 may be more useful to you than having $100, however, having 25 billion dollars is not much more utility than having 5 billion dollars, unless you intend to take over the world or something along those lines.

Under these situations, if you only have use for $50 and you have $100, then the remaining $50 can be given to someone else who has use for the $50. In that case you aren't really losing much, since you didn't intend to spend the $50, whereas the person who gets the $50 may have much to gain (for example, the ability to not starve to death). The $50 in this case is surely being put to much better use than if you burned it. You may feel that the world revolves around you and that there is no difference between money leaving your possession and money being destroyed, but while you may be unique in this respect, the world does not revolve around anyone else and so this point is valid for them.

That's true, but it still doesn't change the fact that while there would be more happiness, YOU wouldn't necessarily be more happy, and that's what matters, in the end.

Other points include the golden rule and the idea that humans, as a whole, are better off if they help each other out than if they all acted solely to increase their own well-being. I think it can be stated with some confidence that the overall level of happiness is higher when all humans help each other and display what are generally regarded as ethical standards and altruism, than if all humans all acted solely for their immediate self-benefit.

DEBATEABLE.

But the only rational benefit of that is still egoistic, since them being happy can make you happy. Personally, and I don't really like bringing my personal opinions into stuff like this, I agree, and that's why I tend to do things that help other people. That and because of the immediate happiness I get from simply performing the act.

[syzygy]

the problem is, you, a person lacking in morality, are trying to add morality with rationality, and are rightly not finding a solid mixture. not everyone does good deeds because they know they'll feel better from it. there's an X factor that you're missing.

[Lucon]

the problem is, you, a person lacking in morality, are trying to add morality with rationality, and are rightly not finding a solid mixture. not everyone does good deeds because they know they'll feel better from it. there's an X factor that you're missing.

I've already discussed that X-Factor. That is the superego telling us to do it. It's made from the time someone's born by society, and in many cases, religion or spirituality.

And I'm not trying to mix morality and rationality at all. Morality except for egoistic purposes is irrational.

[froedrick]

How bout I take a leaf out of your book. You're wrong.

[Lucon]

How bout I take a leaf out of your book. You're wrong.

Oh, but I'm right. I'd really like it if you could tell me why I was wrong. I WANT to be wrong, as strange as that may seem.

[froedrick]

Oh, but I'm right. I'd really like it if you could tell me why I was wrong. I WANT to be wrong, as strange as that may seem.

You are wrong.

[syzygy]

morality can neither be rational nor irrational. in mixing their standards, you assume it's one over the other.

the superego is the basis of morality; you may as well say 'morality causes people to act morally.' it's not a separate factor, it's the same thing.

[Lucon]

morality can neither be rational nor irrational. in mixing their standards, you assume it's one over the other.

the superego is the basis of morality; you may as well say 'morality causes people to act morally.' it's not a separate factor, it's the same thing.

No, morality is irrational. It involves acting on things you "feel" instead of things you thought through, and these things you "feel" can be shown to be completely illogical, so it's really the definition of irrationality.

[Lucon]

You are wrong.

Oh, but I'm not. That's the problem.