Abortion

[Arikel]

If I was alive and capable of kicking your mother in the stomach when she was pregnant with you, Tone, I would have done it.

awww PH don't say that even if you are joking

[genocidal]

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.

No, I didn't mean utility in that sense. I meant utility as in achieving the greatest happiness for greatest amount of people. I'll admit that your view of acting only out of self-interest is a more twisted ableit "realist" (in the international relations sense, proving the inapplicability) view of utilitarianism, but nonetheless that is what it is - not rationality. At best, what you think rationality is is merely your own opinions of human motives; that those are clearly drawn from your own personal experience and have little relevance in others' lives or motives for morality.

[Tone]

That is a utilitarian approach to ethics - actually there are other ways of determining right and wrong.

However arguing from a unitiliarian approach. What about the suffering of the unborn child to take into account as well as that of the parent(s). Also how do you not know that the child if it is born not bring happyness to life of the parent greater than that which they would have had otherwise, of course the inverse of that could be equally true.

The suffering of the fetus is assumed to be minimal and its assumed to have little consciousness and to the second question you dont know, you are guessing end results based on what you know and whats most likely. that unborn child could perhaps find the cure to cancer 3 years earlier than it otherwise would have been found if she never existed

[PH]

awww PH don't say that even if you are joking

It might actually be funny if I was joking.

[SEAL]

...correct or not. However, this conclusion that I came to was without any bias or preconceived notions. That's why I can state it as fact rather than my own view, belief, or opinion.

So your fact is that "Without religion there is no morality" ?

Quickly thrue google:
Many hits, here's a nice conclusion from: http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/cohen.html

- Morality is a natural fact; it is not created by the formulation of "laws"; these only express its existence and our sense of value. The moral feeling creates the moral law; not the other way about. Morality has nothing to do with God; it has nothing to do with a future life.


I'm sorry, your fact isn't right.

[Lucon]

So your fact is that "Without religion there is no morality" ?

Quickly thrue google:
Many hits, here's a nice conclusion from: http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/cohen.html

- Morality is a natural fact; it is not created by the formulation of "laws"; these only express its existence and our sense of value. The moral feeling creates the moral law; not the other way about. Morality has nothing to do with God; it has nothing to do with a future life.


I'm sorry, your fact isn't right.

Everything you can find on the internet is correct.

But I already said that there can be morality without religion. That wasn't what any of what I'm saying was based on anyway.

[Lucon]

No, I didn't mean utility in that sense. I meant utility as in achieving the greatest happiness for greatest amount of people. I'll admit that your view of acting only out of self-interest is a more twisted ableit "realist" (in the international relations sense, proving the inapplicability) view of utilitarianism, but nonetheless that is what it is - not rationality. At best, what you think rationality is is merely your own opinions of human motives; that those are clearly drawn from your own personal experience and have little relevance in others' lives or motives for morality.

My opinions of human motives have nothing to do with this. What I'm saying is that to be rational is to be egoistic. That's all.

[Lucon]

no other logical reason exists. all things lead to pleasure/pain. if someone says "the meaning of life is to find god", then its the pleasure of finding god and the pain of being lost. if someone says the meaning of life is to "spiritually learn and evolve" then its the pleasure of spiritually evolving and pain of being behind" if someone says "the meaning of life is to ________ then its the pleasure of ________ and pain of _________". applys to any and everything in life. In the end, nothing exists but pleasure/pain therefore the most direct route to increase happiness and decrease suffering is the most ethical, rather than creative beliefs which leads to a wellness level anyway (often not a good wellness ratio). all the mater and energy around you and inside you simply in the end leads to an experience of many states, emotions, which in turn can be reduced to the duality of pleasure and pain.

Life's meaning is whatever we give to it, not anything like that. You see, while there's definitely some merit with what you're saying about personally seeking pleasure, there's no point in seeking the pleasure of others since you, yourself, don't feel it.

[Theif of Time]

Most people see things as they are. I think what you mean by that is that people always have biased based on what they already believe, correct or not. However, this conclusion that I came to was without any bias or preconceived notions. That's why I can state it as fact rather than my own view, belief, or opinion.

Hmm... Ok, in a purely technical sense, most people do see things 'as they are'. They do miss things, and their brain fills in bits when there isn't actually anything there, so theres always an overtone of illusion to everything. We're talking about vision here, though, once you get into the realms of ideas, people see them quite differently, depending on their culture, religion, upbringing, education, etc.
Maybe a more accurate statement would be 'we don't see (meaning interpret ideas) things the same'

Everything you can find on the internet is correct.

You are aware thats a self contradictory statement, given its location (On the internet).

[genocidal]

My opinions of human motives have nothing to do with this. What I'm saying is that to be rational is to be egoistic. That's all.

Yeah and I'm saying that it is not a philosophically or otherwise proven fact that rationality is synonymous with egoism. You have presented no valid argumentation for why that is the case.

I had to do a bit more digging into your posts than I wanted to but from what I gather you believe that rational=logical=what makes a person feel good=egoist happiness. And then from that you conclude that altruism is an aspect of human nature's happiness so therefore helping people (i.e. some sense of morality) is egoistic.

First, you make a jump from saying what is logical is what makes a person feel good. Logic should be the standard by which you judge an argument for rationality equating to egoism - not a word you use interchangeably with egoism.

Second, you fail to present a logical argument for why acting solely for what makes you feel good equates to happiness. Counter-examples to prove you wrong are a dime a dozen. For instance, you only act out of your self interest and merely use other people as means to an end for yourself and, naturally, you fuck someone over who gets pissed and kills you. That's not logical, unless you're also suicidal.

Third, you state that altruism is a type of happiness. Sure, but that doesn't grant you the right to say that feeling altruistic is the sole reason for why helping others makes you happy (since mere altruism would disprove your argument). Your argument is not exclusive from arguments for beneficent human nature, acts of kindness, and true selflessness. You cannot presume to know the bare motive for why people act altruistically or benevolently.

[Lucon]

You're totally right, I have yet to say WHY egoism is rational. I'll just post that on my site when it goes up. It doesn't have any content but a quote generator right now. www.talestar.net

[Lucon]

Hmm... Ok, in a purely technical sense, most people do see things 'as they are'. They do miss things, and their brain fills in bits when there isn't actually anything there, so theres always an overtone of illusion to everything. We're talking about vision here, though, once you get into the realms of ideas, people see them quite differently, depending on their culture, religion, upbringing, education, etc.
Maybe a more accurate statement would be 'we don't see (meaning interpret ideas) things the same'


You are aware thats a self contradictory statement, given its location (On the internet).

I was being sarcastic.

[syzygy]

...I just have more knowledge than anyone else in this specific subject, that is, morality.

how can you know, more than anyone, the subject of morality and not apply it, even in the slightest way, in your life?

[K2Grey]

I wouldn't be that quick to assume that Lucon is necessarily immoral.

[Tone]

You're totally right, I have yet to say WHY egoism is rational. I'll just post that on my site when it goes up. It doesn't have any content but a quote generator right now. www.talestar.net

And now, a random Lucon quote. (refresh for another)
"What's the book about? If it's not about massive conspiracies in a bleak future, the ultranet, or me, I won't read it."