The_Orcid:

"Taken to the extreme" a lot of things would suck, huh? That's not much of an argument. Anger is a great ... motivator. I work out harder when I'm angry. We punish wrong-doers because we're angry. We get in sit-ins at 'Whites Only' diners because people are angry.

Primal instincts are all motivators. My point is that not all of them are motivators. When you work out harder, that is a positive way to use your anger, but if a person's actions are determined by anger then that person is not very to have around in modern society.

Anger taken to the extreme sucks a lot more than a lot of other things taken top to the extreme. It tends to involve people dying.

It's more like ... stupidity-mongering. Ignorance-mongering, what you're getting at there. We should fear gullibility.

I wouldn't use the phrase "fear gullibility" as it goes against my entire point, but I agree completely. Gullibility in the sense that people are unaware that their primal instinct of fear can be exploited.

Plus, you're chalking up fear totally to its physicality. Fear of failure. Fear of ... regret. Don't tell me fear has never made you work harder, love harder? Why is that so unsavory?

Because fear has never made me happier.

Not to get on a "whole other discussion", but you're putting a lot of value into those kids. Why should I care about them? Thought-experimentally speaking, one tortured kiddo in Taiwan whose screams of pure agony power the world's cafe latte machines gets a load of me and begs me to set him free. Why should I? I would, but I know by the cold, cruel, and metallic luster of SCIENCE that I'm shooting myself in the foot here.

Replace "kid" with "n****r" and you pretty much formulated the South's point against abolition. If we're back to arguing this... oy vey..

Thought-experimentally speaking again, the best possible world for the individual is one where you're at the best possible advantage. No?

In my opinion, whether or not you are willing to let others suffer for your own happiness determines whether or not you are a person. 'Nuff said.

Ravek: I agree completely that communism fails for the reasons you described. I was never advocating pure communism

I think that ideally we'd have a selection environment in which selection were done on how much you profit society.

We seem to agree completely. And yes, it's not entirely simple to set up a such system, and I don't really know how to accomplish it in a stable way yet either. But I think about it, I think it is possible.

In my opinion, whether or not you are willing to let others suffer for your own happiness determines whether or not you are a person. 'Nuff said.

 AH-HAH!

And why should I be concerned if I'm a person or not? I mean that as a serious question. If I can be happy as a bad person per se, am I just as well?

In that vein, if I'm willing to suffer for someone else's happiness, am I stupid?

---

The_Orcid:

In my opinion, whether or not you are willing to let others suffer for your own happiness determines whether or not you are a person. 'Nuff said.

 AH-HAH!

And why should I be concerned if I'm a person or not? I mean that as a serious question. If I can be happy as a bad person per se, am I just as well?

In that vein, if I'm willing to suffer for someone else's happiness, am I stupid?

exactly, there is no point.

arti, I always thought that Orcid was just talking a load of rubbish. But now I know that you agree with him... well, after reading your post and your brilliant arguments how can I not agree with the two of you?

This topic reeks of rationalization.

---

squidproquo:

You are a murdering machine, sir.

Gradius1:

No more Jack threads.

Bring it!

Undead---God:

arti, I always thought that Orcid was just talking a load of rubbish. But now I know that you agree with him... well, after reading your post and your brilliant arguments how can I not agree with the two of you?

why thank you

Lord_Terrible:

Replace "kid" with "n****r" and you pretty much formulated the South's point against abolition.

Is that some Reduction ad Hitlerum?

But I think about it, I think it is possible.

Maybe. Perhaps with a huge amount of bureaucracy? (Just thinking of Peter Wiggin here )

Haven't read Ender's Game (if that's the Peter Wiggin you're referring to), though I do have it lying around somewhere... Guy named Matt gave it to me. Now you know.

Like a computing problem can be solved by writing piles of bulky code, I think the amount of bureaucracy needed to keep the system running is inversely proportional to the quality of the solution... I am generally fascinated by a system where, given some initial rules, the emergent system just works. Like an anthill, for example. Not even capitalism works without regulation. Libertarians disagree, but hey.

About the reduction ad Hitlerum, well.. I think the two are eerily similar. One is exploiting a person for personal gain, the other... well, pretty much the same. I was searching for a picture of an overseer to post instead but I couldn't find a one.

Orcid: I could get all preachy at this point, but if I have to convince you by logic or appealing to your greed that being a person is a choice, then I think it's probably going to be moot.

Or maybe you're like myself when I was younger. My username is Lord Terrible for chrissakes. It sort of went away when I stopped being angry at the world.

Maybe if you stopped being a ***, you might get friends that weren't also dicks and disciples other than artiboi.

Lord_Terrible:

Haven't read Ender's Game (if that's the Peter Wiggin you're referring to), though I do have it lying around somewhere...

It's a brilliant book, so I suggest you do read it if you ever have the time.

I am generally fascinated by a system where, given some initial rules, the emergent system just works.

Indeed, but then all the rules have to work locally. I think that implies that the rules have to appeal to individuals directly. So I'm not sure a system like that could exist on any other basis than greed etc.

Yep, that's the whole point Make people's greed work for some greater purpose rather than a company's will.

Then there's the non-trivial matter of actually doing it...

So are you telling me that you can't rationalize being a person if by being a person it will have a detrimental effect on your ability to enjoy life? If you can't defend it logically, well then why the *** aren't you just a Christian or a Hindu or something, Terrible? At least you get a cool afterlife.

"Oh, geez, Orcid! I can't use logic to explain why being a person is important. So I'll just kind make noise for a second and say you're retarded."

 That's a paraphrase for all of you, not just Terrible. Because none of you can. Now, maybe you'll say happiness is relative and people like a doctor who transplants himself from cozy up-town to Uganda might make him feel fuzzy. Congratulations, doctor. You get to live in a converted storage pod for the rest of your life. Well, if he wasn't deluded by fantasies of karma or God or humanism ... he could've been really kickin' it like the Masque of the Red Death.

 Now, whatever. You could just tell me by virtue of personality or something that there are just some people who have to get their jollies that way.

 But, point is, if that same doctor did blow and partied with hookers ... same difference?

 You guys are putting all this arbitrary value on "."

"You're a ***, Orcid! You're not a guy!"

Alright?

I mean for this to be a serious analysis of the human idea of and bad. I'm not trying to defend my *** actions, I'm trying to get someone to tell me why I should care about the designation? Logically. 

 Anytime anyone asks these questions it's like everyone immediately decides that they're just emo or juvenile or Joker wanna-bes.

 No, I'm just trying to explore/challenge one of the deepest, most primitive human ideas.

Edit: I'm not sitting here, by the way, twirling my f****ng mustache, I'm asking these questions with scholarly intent, not a malicious one.

---

The_Orcid:

I mean for this to be a serious analysis of the human idea of and bad. I'm not trying to defend my *** actions, I'm trying to get someone to tell me why I should care about the designation? Logically. 

I think the answer is fairly simple, but I'm pretty sure the people that actually cherish their ness will strongly disagree as it actually goes against the very definition of being .

But as far as I see it, people are because of favors.
If people like you, you can get their help if you need something.
You don't have to be , but it can make your life so much more easier and therefor is something people tend to do.

Happens daily:
first thing you learn when you work in a store is how to greet people, "welcome, how may I help you?"
Second thing is how to say bye, "thanks for coming, have a nice day"
You don't care about those people per se, you just want to make them come back and give advertisement to their friends.

You are friends with everyone in your class, because you can copy notes.
You are friendly with a boss, because he has the power to give you more money.

The other reason is actually the same, only in reverse, instead of wanting favors, you fear revenge.
You are friendly to your boss, because if you said "*** you" to your boss, he'll probably fire you.

That would be my logical view on why people are .

---

clark1250:

I can't be ignorant for something I do not know

Logically you shouldn't care Orcid. Nobody should. Logically we should only do what we want to do.

The value may be arbitrary, but it is value nonetheless. Being generally Makes Things Better For Everyone. And for some reason, we find that useful.

Of course, some don't see it that way and prefer to Make It Better For Themselves. There's nothing cosmically invalid about this point of view. There is nothing necessarily inherent in our human biology that necessitates altruism.

The problem is, that everything we are is arbitrary. We place arbitrary definitions on arbitrary sounds that we have discovered we can make and call them words, sentences, arguments, orders. Just because there is no cosmic value to anything does not necessarily mean the value is not there. Even if it is imaginary value, it is still somewhat tangible, and definitely has tangible effects (Monde's example of being nice to customers = more business).
Hence, we have many people who find the rewards of being far outweigh the rewards of not, as Monde has illustrated.

---

The only thing worse than beating a dead horse is betting on one.

Obviously.

So I pose to you the same question I posed to Terrible.

If one kid's screams powered the world's cafe latte machines, would you, given the opportunity, free the little dude? This is comparable to the "would you kill one little girl to cure AIDs" question.

Now, lets examine this veritable CONUNDRUM. Logically, these kids gotta draw the short straw. It would hurt a lot more people to stop the kiddie-torture or spare her life, respectively. Do we agree? Do we agree then that if given the opportunity to intervene in these situations logic dictates we should choose not to. If you would, why would you defy logic?

If you tell me it's because of, oh, maybe ... empathy ... does that mean you haven't mastered your baser instincts? Should we be able to turn something like empathy on and off at will, based on the benefit to us? Is the best possible world for you or I one in which we alone can?

 Basically, wouldn't it be better for you if you weren't a guy at all? Assuming you mastered empathy (fear, anger, etc). 

 

---

I could live in a world without latte's. But I might kill a girl to cure AIDs. I don't really know what I'd do until actually faced with the situation, though. It depends on a lot of things. Like say, if that little girl was my sister. I probably wouldn't, since I hold family higher than all others. How do you 'defy' logic when it doesn't have a will? Saving my family members over strangers is the most logical thing to do in my mind. But like morality, there is no cosmic logical law regarding decisions.

But I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that morally, killing a little girl to cure AIDs is a 'bad' thing? Who decided that? I might think it's a thing.

We can all ignore our conscience and we can all learn not to be guilty, but I really don't think that it would benefit us, by and large. We're not faced with 'kill her to cure all' situations in our daily life. It's a bit of a pointless example.

---

The only thing worse than beating a dead horse is betting on one.

Alright. This is probably going to sound pretty preachy, but my hand was forced

So, essentially, you are accusing me of being controlled by my primal instinct of empathy. If I could turn that off, I could exploit my surroundings without care for their well-being. And yes, it would be a pretty swell world for me if I could be a total *** to everyone and not care the slightest.

Being a *** only satisfies your other, less constructive, instincts. I could probably steal someone's purse and buy myself a lot of sweet stuff, or whip a korean kid to power my latte machine. That would cater to my greed, and if I turned off my empathy then yes, I would have a great time.

However, I have chosen to turn off my greed and focus on empathy. That means I don't care whether I can buy a lot of stuff. It doesn't make me happier. What does make me happy is a warm fuzzy feeling of knowing that the little korean kid was not whipped for my enjoyment.

Two tourists walking in front of me once dropped a 1000 kr bill (about £100 or $200) without noticing. There were noone else around, I could have picked it up and pocketed the money. Now, that was actually a temptation. But I chose to give it to them, and I've never regretted that.

Giving it back to them wasn't motivated by a hope of return favors, either. I didn't know them and chances were that I would never see them again. I don't believe in karma or going to heaven either. I did it because:
a) it made them happy. Dropping a 1000kr bill usually means you never see it again, yet here was a guy that just gave it back to you. I like to think I restored a bit of faith in humanity, or at least totally saved their day.
b) not doing it would totally ruin their day.

So why choose to indulge the vomit-inducingly wholesome instincts of empathy and compassion, instead of the much cooler ones like greed and dominance? Two reasons.

One. People who do this, rarely seem to me to be truly happy. People who win the lottery.. after a year, most of them say they're basically as happy as they were before. One part of my family is rich and have lots of fancy things, they're not really happier. They even still have financial worries, which to me is retarded because the worst that could happen to them is that they end up as wealthy as, say, me, and I really don't have a problem with it.

It is my experience that whether or not people are truly happy are only negatively connected to what level they indulge in their greed etc. The happier people are typically a lot more hippie-like. Simply, these instincts bring me a deeper and more stable level of happiness.

Two. Kant's moral imperative, which is basically a fancy way of saying that you should treat others like you want to be treated yourself. I'd rather live in a world where my fellow beings were trying to be people. I think it would suck to live in a world where most people are dicks, which is unfortunately closer to the truth. Therefore I try to be a person.

Working towards a such a world, the first step is starting with yourself. If everyone abode by this, mission accomplished really.

Lord_Terrible:

So, essentially, you are accusing me of being controlled by my primal instinct of empathy. If I could turn that off, I could exploit my surroundings without care for their well-being. And yes, it would be a pretty swell world for me if I could be a total *** to everyone and not care the slightest.

I wouldn't be so sure about that given that naturally in that world everybody would behave like a total selfish something or other and we probably wouldn't have survived long enough as a race to even contemplate splitting atoms.

---

"I don't care if the audience watches my movies, long as my producer doesn't lose money."
-Jean-Luc Goddard

Daninsky:

Lord_Terrible:

So, essentially, you are accusing me of being controlled by my primal instinct of empathy. If I could turn that off, I could exploit my surroundings without care for their well-being. And yes, it would be a pretty swell world for me if I could be a total *** to everyone and not care the slightest.

I wouldn't be so sure about that given that naturally in that world everybody would behave like a total selfish something or other and we probably wouldn't have survived long enough as a race to even contemplate splitting atoms.

'Course, I'm positing a world wherein only you matter. Eternity, the history of the human race, the Universe, begins and ends with you. Each and everyone of us is the Alpha and the Omega to our perspective on reality. It's kinda like solipsism, minus everyone being fake. You're the only one who really matters because you're the only one with the perspective.

Now, 's far as Terrible goes, you mention it makes you happy to make other people happy, but in such a Universe that I'm describing (which, to my view, is the one in which we live) the value of helping someone (lets assume) who you'll never see again, who will never do anything positive for the world at large, is completely fixed to empathy. And evolution cares about humanity. Not you.

I'm not trying to make a point at this ... uh, point, but just trying to discuss the merits of helping someone versus helping yourself, per se.

Lemme put it like this:

Kid + Tortue = Cafe Latte

Empathy + You + Tortured Kid = You save the kid

Kid - Torture = No Cafe Latte

You + Grateful Kid = Fuzzy Feeling

You - Cafe Latte = Sucks, but you saved the kid

NOW

Kid + Tortue = Cafe Latte

No Empathy + You + Tortured Kid = Cafe Latte

You + Cafe Latte + Tortured Kid + No Empathy = Fuzzy Feeling

I'm using something completely arbitrary like cafe lattes, but lets assume it's rocket ships or the Great Barrier Reef or something. You have a lot of feelings couples with a little suckitude in one scenario and being utterly contented in the other.

---

You + Grateful Kid = Fuzzy Feeling A

You + Cafe Latte = Fuzzy Feeling B

FFA > FFB

If you want to get rid of your empathy to better satisfy your greed, why not do it in reverse, and get rid of your greed to better satisfy your empathy? Same end result, and you don't have to listen to people nagging you about being a ***.

Lord_Terrible:

You + Grateful Kid = Fuzzy Feeling A



You + Cafe Latte = Fuzzy Feeling
B

FFA > FFB

If you want to get rid of your empathy to better satisfy your greed, why not do it in reverse, and get rid of your greed to better satisfy your empathy? Same end result, and you don't have to listen to people nagging you about being a ***.

Of course empathy causes you pain as often as it give you the fuzzies. One scenario is give and take, the other is take without guilt. Without guilt, you may never have the heroic satisfaction your empathy might provide, but you'll have a rather, might I say, pure kind of contentedness in your wicked debauchery.

---

And if everyone did that, I don't think the human race would have lasted long. Thank god non empathic genes aren't as common as you'd like. (I don't see how they would have evolved in large quantities anyway).

Is the guilt and the pain too much for you? Can't handle it? From my personal standpoint, FFA is so superior to FFB that any guilt and pain becomes utterly irrelevant and actually easily bearable. I can't see how FFB is a wholly superior situation.

---

The only thing worse than beating a dead horse is betting on one.

deliriousstudios:

And if everyone did that, I don't think the human race would have lasted long. Thank god non empathic genes aren't as common as you'd like. (I don't see how they would have evolved in large quantities anyway).

Except I didn't say that. "Gloriously missing the point." Hallelujah. I wonder how many times I must use the word "individual" before you, ya know, figure that one out?

Is the guilt and the pain too much for you? Can't handle it? From my personal standpoint, FFA is so superior to FFB that any guilt and pain becomes utterly irrelevant and actually easily bearable. I can't see how FFB is a wholly superior situation.

Easily bearable. Right.

But what if you didn't have to bear any pain at all? How is FFA, whereby you must endure some degree of self-sacrifice better than no sacrifice, and contentedness?

Consider, again, the doctor I spoke of earlier who's big timin' in Uganda living in a converted storage pod. Mallaria. War. Death. Big f****ng ants.

I'm simply saying that living for yourself is the best way to live. Living for yourself is not for society.

WHOA IRONY ALERT RIGHT GUYS?

Yeah, the same irony that exists in phrases like, "follow your dreams" and "what we need is more people who specialize in the impossible" ... and etc. We tell everyone to shoot for the moon (even if you miss you'll land amongst the stars ) when in fact if everyone shot for the moon we'd be dead and I wouldn't have some fifty plus year old failure making my hambuger at McDonalds.

---

And evolution cares about humanity. Not you

That's not true. Evolution selects on genes that provide for their own reproduction, not species or individuals.

Reproduction of individuals involves reproduction of genes, so the most direct way a gene will be selected on is how it promotes reproduction. Survival of an individual will give more chances for reproduction, so that's also a plus.

Survival of other individuals with the same gene also helps that gene survive, so being kind to your kin is a idea. Survival of potential mates gives more opportunities for reproduction, so helping other members of the species that are close to you is a idea.

It's a idea to not help individuals that don't help you: reciprocation is useful. In an environment where you're punished for not helping, helping others that help you stimulates them to keep helping you: the other half of reciprocation is also a idea.

Etc. etc. morals make evolutionary sense.

RAVEK:

And evolution cares about humanity. Not you

That's not true. Evolution selects on genes that provide for their own reproduction, not species or individuals.

Semantics, RAVE(EEE)K. You know my implication. Survival of the species.

---

 

Undead---God:

Fable2Fan:

What in the hell are you talking about?! You just started ranting about anger and sex!

You bothered reading all that ?

I skimmed through it just a little bit. It got so boring and surreal after a while.

---