• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Ethical Systems?

It is the choice between egoism and altruism, a choice between benefiting those who follow the system and benefiting those who do not.

The way my way benefits those such as me who follow it is pretty obvious. The way altruism (the opposite) does not benefit its followers is that it says they should sacrifice themselves.
Click to expand...

But, see, the point of altruistic theories is that if it makes the world a heck of a lot safer. If we imagine a double blind scenario between you and I where one of us has to decide to either save our life or the other's, the egoist philosophy works fine.

However, if we add another person into the mix - say, Crazy Linoone, and we all are forced to decide whether to save ourselves or the two others, the egoist philosophy stands short because you have a 2/3 chance of dying. If we are all altruistic, we all only have a 1/3 chance of dying. In this case, the altruistic choice does the best for the individual, which as you proceed to say, is of course the goal of any ethical theory.

(I remember reading something about birds in The Selfish Gene, but whatever.)

I look forward to your reply as I am enjoying this.
Click to expand...

Me too! It's always great to hear other perspectives on things; even if we don't necessarily agree with each other on something as important as this, it's cool to see that we can get along. It really is beautiful, isn't it?
 
I always act in my own best interests. It's just that "not having to feel like a huge jerk" counts as being in my own best interests. In the end, I think that's how most people work.

Morals are completely subjective, which means that no moral code is really justifiable. In that sense, neither "right" nor "wrong" exist. But "right" and "wrong" are not just philosophical concepts; they're also feelings, just as sadness, anger, pain, thirst, lust and joy are feelings. And we all want to feel as good as possible. That's why we eat when we're hungry, why we avoid sticking our hands in fire and why we try to do the right thing when we can, and when it doesn't conflict too much with our other needs and desires. Even seemingly altruistic choices are selfish; we make them because it feels better than not making them.

The point is that thunder isn't alone in being selfish in his actions; he's just a bit of a psychopath.
 
MD is right. Everyone is selfish, because there is no set moral system. What I think is right may not be what you think is right. We shouldn't force our morals on others, because it might turn out that our moral is inferior. What we can do is debate about it and try to convince the other side that we are right and they are wrong, and keep on moving forward as the better moral overthrows the old, outdated one.

I think the best we can do is to have a "try to create the maximum possible amount of happiness in the world" ethical system, and make death always detract a certain amount from the maximum happiness, no matter who that dead person may be.

And this is why I do not agree with thunder's system because he is, in essence, taking away the right of others to their own happiness. If he lives and a whole city dies, then yes, he is happy, but the whole city of dead people wouldn't and their families even more so (not to mention the world, which would be pretty shocked by so many people suddenly dying).

Inept At Normal said:
However, if we add another person into the mix - say, Crazy Linoone, and we all are forced to decide whether to save ourselves or the two others, the egoist philosophy stands short because you have a 2/3 chance of dying. If we are all altruistic, we all only have a 1/3 chance of dying. In this case, the altruistic choice does the best for the individual, which as you proceed to say, is of course the goal of any ethical theory.
Click to expand...

Hey why am I being dragged into this :<
 
thunder said:
It is the choice between egoism and altruism, a choice between benefiting those who follow the system and benefiting those who do not.

The way my way benefits those such as me who follow it is pretty obvious. The way altruism (the opposite) does not benefit its followers is that it says they should sacrifice themselves.

A quote summarising a reason for my belief well is this "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.” Ayn Rand

Furthermore as I stated in my post I believe that from the perspective of the person/people sacrificing himself/herself/themselves the world goes to hell if they act selflessly.

Being selfish brings the greatest benefits to the practicer in life and that should be the goal of any ethical system as we get one shot at life before ceasing to exist so logically we must make the most of it and keep it going as long as possible.

I look forward to your reply as I am enjoying this.
Click to expand...
Whoa, a Randian! I thought you guys were just a story made up to frighten children. Let me admit something: I haven't read Atlas Shrugged (it's quite long). So I don't actually know whether you're misrepresenting Rand's arguments. Presumably, though, hers are at least a bit more convincing that what you've put forward so far. Are you basically just reasoning that you don't have to care about other people's experiences because, from your subjective point of view, their experiences don't exist?
 
Last edited:
Actually I'm fairly certain Rand believed in an objective reality as opposed to a subjective one, hence "objectivism". Don't quote me on this though.
 
Well yes, that's what Rand's philosophy is called. But that name could refer to a number of different things. I don't think she meant it simply to mean the opposite of subjectivism; subjectivism isn't an ethical theory. Any way, I'm arguing with thunder, not Rand.
 
Crazy Linoone said:
Hm, I don't really follow the Golden Rule, per say, since my personal bubble of safety is a bit larger than most people's, so I get nervous when people stand too close in front of me even though that person might think he/she is standing at a perfectly normal distance. This means that I often end up in awkward situations when a person with a small personal bubble try to walk closer to me while he/she talks, and I start scooting backwards because I'm feeling uncomfortable.

The thing is that, if I were to talk to a person, I wouldn't want that person to keep on scooting backwards.

So yeah. Some people can tolerate some things others can't, and some people can't tolerate some things some can. Therefore, I prefer the "don't be a jerk" moral instead, because it means that I can scoot backwards when I feel uncomfortable, because this is my personal bubble and the person talking to me has no idea that he/she is breaking my bubble.

(Or I can tell the person to scoot away a little, but that's even more impolite...)
Click to expand...

Agreed. The Golden Rule is all well and good, but can be improved upon by treating others as they would like to be treated. I like it because it involves a level of putting-yourself-in-others'-shoes that I think everybody can benefit from.
 
Inept At Normal said:
But, see, the point of altruistic theories is that if it makes the world a heck of a lot safer. If we imagine a double blind scenario between you and I where one of us has to decide to either save our life or the other's, the egoist philosophy works fine.

However, if we add another person into the mix - say, Crazy Linoone, and we all are forced to decide whether to save ourselves or the two others, the egoist philosophy stands short because you have a 2/3 chance of dying. If we are all altruistic, we all only have a 1/3 chance of dying. In this case, the altruistic choice does the best for the individual, which as you proceed to say, is of course the goal of any ethical theory.
Click to expand...

Actually in a scenario like that the only way anyone will live is if one person decides to save him/herself and all the others decide to sacrifice themselves.
If we have 2 or more who decide to save themselves and leave the rest then between them they kill each other and everyone else.
If everyone decides to go with self sacrifice then they all die.

This is because for someone to benefit from altruism they have to be willing to let the altruist suffer for their (the person who benefits' not the altruist's) own benefit.
I suppose this means that a society containing more altruists than egoists will work well and that in the above situation omnicidal people are the only one likely to win.

@Ruby I am saying that if I die I will see no benefit to anyone, I just don't see why it would ever be rational to let yourself die when dieing is the worst ting that can happen. I fail to see the reason that I should sacrifice myself to save others as simply it's the good/nice/moral thing to do is not really a reason. So I would like you to give me a rational reason for self sacrifice.
 
I just don't see why it would ever be rational to let yourself die when dieing is the worst ting that can happen.
Click to expand...

Your logic holds if (and only if) you assume dying is the worst thing that can happen. I think a lot of people would disagree.
 
thunder said:
I am saying that if I die I will see no benefit to anyone, I just don't see why it would ever be rational to let yourself die when dieing is the worst ting that can happen. I fail to see the reason that I should sacrifice myself to save others as simply it's the good/nice/moral thing to do is not really a reason. So I would like you to give me a rational reason for self sacrifice.
Click to expand...
Ha. What's the rational reason for living?
 
thunder said:
@Ruby I am saying that if I die I will see no benefit to anyone, I just don't see why it would ever be rational to let yourself die when dieing is the worst ting that can happen. I fail to see the reason that I should sacrifice myself to save others as simply it's the good/nice/moral thing to do is not really a reason. So I would like you to give me a rational reason for self sacrifice.
Click to expand...
You're setting up a false choice between altruism and egoism. Surely the rational thing to do is to look out for yourself and other people equally.
 
Actually in a scenario like that the only way anyone will live is if one person decides to save him/herself and all the others decide to sacrifice themselves.
If we have 2 or more who decide to save themselves and leave the rest then between them they kill each other and everyone else.
If everyone decides to go with self sacrifice then they all die.
Click to expand...

My bad. Let me rephrase.

Say, um, opaltiger put us in this situation. She is going to randomly choose one of the three of us and use our answer to decide what person(s) to kill. If she chooses someone who decides to be altruistic, that one will die and the other two will live. If she chooses someone being egotistic, that one will live and the other two will die.
Therefore, choosing to be altruistic = 2/3 chance of living.
Therefore, choosing to be egoist = 1/3 chance of living.

Do you understand? If you'd like, I could draw a diagram that would better explain what I'm getting at.

Your logic holds if (and only if) you assume dying is the worst thing that can happen. I think a lot of people would disagree.
Click to expand...

Not to play the devil's advocate here, but... huh? What could possibly be worse than dying? Unless you're being tortured for your whole life, I cannot possibly fathom the concept of wanting death over life.

If my sister dies or something, I'll feel sad, but at least I'm still feeling. Am I missing something here?
 
Inept At Normal said:
If my sister dies or something, I'll feel sad, but at least I'm still feeling. Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...
So you don't think anything could possibly be worth dying for?

We're all going to die sooner or later. What matters is what you do with the time you have, not how much of it you have.
 
Music Dragon said:
So you don't think anything could possibly be worth dying for?

We're all going to die sooner or later. What matters is what you do with the time you have, not how much of it you have.
Click to expand...

Excellent point, thanks for elaborating. I have a rather single-track mind today.

You've got me orgasmicly squeeing with inspiration right now, for all it's worth.
 
Ruby said:
You're setting up a false choice between altruism and egoism. Surely the rational thing to do is to look out for yourself and other people equally.
Click to expand...

The choice is that in many situations the choice which benefits you most is not beneficial for others and vice versa, it is not likely that you will find find a win-win situation. Most of the time life is like a competition, if someone else wins you lose and vice versa.

@Inept At Normal I see your point now with that, although I would still choose to save myself as my own survival is priority number one for me. I still don't see why in this situation I should choose to die, especially as you just said that you can't think of anything worse than dieing. (The torture doesn't seem relevant to this, but if it is please explain)
It seems that the best way to survive is still egoism, but I assume you have some argument against this waiting.
 
Human civilization is built on cooperation. Why do you think we (and many other animals, to varying extents) evolved to behave altruistically in the first place?
 
@Inept At Normal I see your point now with that, although I would still choose to save myself as my own survival is priority number one for me. I still don't see why in this situation I should choose to die, especially as you just said that you can't think of anything worse than dieing. (The torture doesn't seem relevant to this, but if it is please explain)
Click to expand...

Well, see, that's the point. Sure, in this situation if you chose egoism and we chose altruism, you'd be guaranteed to live. However, as Music Dragon (the most beautiful man in the world) proceeds to say, cooperation is the name of the game. If you choose egoism, we're inspired to choose egoism as well, and then you return to a 1/3 chance of living.

To summarize: Altruism increases you're chances of living significantly.
 
thunder said:
The choice is that in many situations the choice which benefits you most is not beneficial for others and vice versa, it is not likely that you will find find a win-win situation. Most of the time life is like a competition, if someone else wins you lose and vice versa.
Click to expand...
Well, possibly. I still can't follow your argument. True, sometimes you have to choose between benefiting yourself and benefiting others, but the benefits involved are hardly if ever equal. Saving a child from drowning is an act of altruism, but the costs to you (clothes getting wet) are very small compared with the potential cost to the child (death). I can understand that maybe if there were a hypothetical choice between two equally bad things (you dying vs. someone else dying), then there might be an argument for giving yourself priority, in the absence of any kind of tie-breaker. But that doesn't apply in many real cases, if any.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom