Cheating...

Hey [you]! If you haven't noticed, this is now the old digibutter forums. Go over to the new site!

digibutter.nerr

It's Hi-Technicaaal!

Home Forums FAQ Wiki Search Groups Shops Arcade Tournaments Register Log in

Cheating...
Goto page Previous 1, 2

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

digibutter.nerr Forum Index -> General Discussion

Author

Message

? Block
Fancy Wario

Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 13463

HP: 69 MP: 8 Lives: 1

Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:35 pm

Zelnor wrote:

stuff

This is why Zelnor is the smartest person on Digibutter. >_>

Token Nazi?
Zelnor

Joined: 01 Jul 2007
Posts: 6425

HP: 10 MP: 7 Lives: 1

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:27 am

? Block wrote:

Zelnor wrote:

stuff

This is why Zelnor is the smartest person on Digibutter. >_>

Aww, thanks.

Anyway... Lol, teacher's response.

Epic ToK Teacher wrote:

Do unto others, as you think they do unto you??

First of all, I think you are very much on the right track to back up and try to understand the argumentation by the correspondent “Olimar” from an inner distance. This kind of attitude is a part of what the philosopher Edmund Husserl called “epoché” – attempting to look at that which involves us essentially from a calculated distance so that the make-up of the observed object becomes more visible (for him it was the first step in the “phenomenological reduction” – but that is something for future studies). In any case, I think this backing up has made the fibre of Olimar’s arguments quite transparent and I agree with your analysis of the fallacies. They are often quite glaring.

The problem is that – having identified the fallacious argumentation – the kernel problem has not been solved. The way I see it, Olimar is asking: How do I (or anyone) become a “winner”? What is a “winner”? And as Hamlet would say: “Aye, there’s the rub”!

My Jewish teachers would have immediately answered that one with another question:
So what is your highest value? Only then can you even tell, whether or not you have won or lost!

If Olimar’s highest value is power, then it could conceivably be that he is using the right means to get what he wants.

There are countless examples in history of this. The Roman emperor Caligula, for example, was very powerful, and he would probably have agreed with Olimar’s thesis. Caligula, however, had a problem that Olimar may have as well: His real highest value was to be loved, especially for his artistic side. Unfortunately, his way of living – killing people, lying, cheating, wasting money in absurd amounts etc – in order to maintain the imperial power he had inherited, practically precluded any thought of what he desired. It even precluded his being an artist of any appreciable sort. In Caligula’s case, the conundrum is evident, in Olimar’s not so open. And Caligula is quite a drastic example. Maybe Olimar would even say that he is not necessarily seeking power.

A basic question emerges from this conundrum, however, and that is: Can I have i.e. love as my highest priority and be seen (and see myself) as a “winner” – or can I only win, if I have enough power?

The first possible response to this would be to just ditch “love” as an empty term, to argue that nobody knows what that is anyway and that it is probably usually 99% or more illusion. If, like Olimar thinks he does, we substitute “self-interest” for “love”, then the problem looks less unsolvable. But is it really? How do we define that which Olimar calls “self-interest”?

I am quite certain that Olimar would not say that something that makes him happy right now, but makes him dreadfully unhappy in the future would really be in his own “self-interest”, because in the long run, his “self” (the definition of which would also be interesting here, but would lead too far) would be damaged, not enhanced. Our good old ToK textbook has some nice simple thoughts on this one:

“The philosopher Plato pointed out that ethical egoism does not suggest that stealing, cheating, and dishonesty are moral behaviours, because these things wouldn’t make you happier in the long term. By behaving selfishly, you will suffer fear of being caught, possibly punishment, and even in the unlikely event you achieve your goals in this way, you will enjoy the achievement far less than someone who made it there the hard way. Selfish actions will rebound on you, and in the long term you would have been better off by avoiding selfish behaviour.” (p. 238, first edition / Alchin, Nicholas: theory of knowledge // Chapter 11 “Ethics”)

Here we have, of course, the classical differentiation between “self-interest” and “selfishness”, which too many “gut-level” proponents of self-interest ethics either do not make at all or not clearly enough. If self-interest means ethical egoism and not reactive egotism, then we are talking about a virtue ethics that desires a fulfilment of one’s own destiny and being. That this is hardly compatible with wild and reactive random acts of selfishness which have the goal of power enhancement, should be immediately obvious.

I think that Olimar’s thought are refuted enough right here. Virtue ethics based on the realisation of my “self” would contradict his reasoning thoroughly. For further reading, consult the works of Macintyre or go right to the source and read Arisotelian ethics. There is also a readable second-level source to both: Kelvin Knight, Aristotelian Philosophy: Ethics and Politics from Aristotle to MacIntyre, Polity Press, 2007.

If you want to go a step further and say that self-realisation is not enough for you, then you end up with Paul Tillich’s ethics, which are “Beyond Morality” and a long way beyond Olimar. I am attaching chapter 5 in a shortened form here (You will see this text again next October, if all goes well, but according to me, nobody can see it enough!).

That may serve as a beginning comment for now.

Thank you for letting me in on your deliberations. I wish you energy and passion for this debate, as the meaning of your life is at stake – and that is certainly worth exploring.

See you in school.

Also, small response time.

Quote:

Selfishness is beyond control.

Maybe. Maybe not. Are we actually in control of our own bodies ? Do we control our own thoughts ? We can make our limbs move, we accomplish, but are we, the person inside the skull, actually controlling every single process ? Consciously ? Sub-consciously ?

Also, we "officially" oppose it.

Quote:

Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and a core aspect of various religious traditions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Sikhism, and many others. Also, altruism is a key aspect of many humanitarian and philanthropic causes, exemplified in leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, Gandhi and Mother Teresa. This idea was often described as the Golden rule of ethics. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness.

Religions oppose selfishness. Government have us pay taxes to provide welfare for people who maybe do not even deserve it, and we see the point. We grumble and grudge, but our society and aimed towards helping everyone get along as good as possible. That is not selfish. There are so many jobless people, we could just have them die off. It would maybe even be in the interest of our own survival or welfare. But we do not.

Quote:

Selfishness is beyond control. It's not like we always act on our own profit, but, usually, when we don't, it's for the heck of making ourselves feel nice. Sometimes, even bragging rights ("Look at me, I donate $5 to charity every six months, I'm awesome").

So, you are also supporting the argument of Rosseau ?

Quote:

But, everything that has been said so far runs on one assumption -- selfishness is bad. But is it, really?

It depends on your perspective and values. If you personally define selfishness differently then we do, it may not be. If you tolerate what we think is unbearably selfish, it's not bad for you. It depends on cultural, historical, social, etc. perspective.

Generally, selfishness is the withered remains of our survival instinct, as are some cases of xenophobia and fear of change. We fend for ourselves because we are the most predictable thing we have, the biggest constant. If we eat, we live. Nothing more. If you eat, you could kill me.

Quote:

If humans were kind, they would have never gotten to the place where we are.

Where are we ?
In a high-tech society with social services that has trouble it made for itself through advanced economical smoke and mirrors, in my opinion.
Maybe in a world where the American dream is dead and the rich and poor are separated way too much, in someone else's.

Quote:

We are animals, as much as every other animal. Before we developed writing and society, we had to live just like them. Under the power of a selective and cruel nature that set the one rule nobody managed to break before we did: survival of the fittest.

That is an important point. We broke it. We gave evolution the finger ever since we discovered medicine and put our ethics over the doctrines of nature. There are, however, remnants such as selfishness as the aforementioned crippled sense of survival.

Quote:

If cavemen were kind, what would they do if a sabertiger came chasing them up? Would they just say "Oh, he's probably hungry, I'll feed him my body"? Let's not forget cavemen did not have access to advanced medicine like modern men do.

I fail to see the connection to medicine; we did domesticate wolves and made dogs - though, as one may say, possible we did it only because of their hunting capabilities - and we feed them. Saber tigers are predators, and we would have killed them as they would have killed us. Survival, the primordial selfishness of our DNA. I want to survive. It's you or me. I don't like it, and neither do you, but one of us will die. I'm sorry.

Quote:

The reason why mankind made it through the rule of survival of the fittest was because of the amount of sucker punches we delivered. We aren't as strong as those sabertigers that get all the prey, so what do we do? We steal. We steal the prey.

First of all, we invented teamwork. That, too, may have been selfish - I may have to share the prey, but I have a much lower chance of being the prey.

Quote:

If I made myself a gun just to shoot anyone that annoys me, you would find that wrong, wouldn't you?

Yes, and this is important: You live in an unselfish society. If people annoy you, you as a developed mammal are expected to solve that conflict without violence, and especially without killing your "opponent". If you are hungry, we provide for you. If you need a home, there is shelter. We expect you to pay the "collective" of society back, but we care. Because.

Quote:

I do realize we don't live in prehistory anymore. But the very reason why we don't is because we cheated. Because we were selfish. So, is selfishness really wrong? Nope.

In this context, I wonder if we should really call it selfishness or survival. In those times, we needed to steal others and sucker punch evolution. Today, we provide for ourselves, have a vast network of economies in order to advance ourselves, and even found the time and resources to treat other animals to the same kindness that we give our own species.

Quote:

Why the hell are you having dinner tonight? Why aren't you going to give all he food in your house to some hobo out there? And why not your money, too? Because you need it to let yourself live. Because you are too selfish to give up on what YOU need to have somebody else get what THEY need.

Because it is our survival. If he needs food, he can apply for welfare. If we give him money, he would probably not spend it in clothes, food and a haircut to get a job.

It is, or course, hard to argue in these circumstances because survival, selfishness and actual logic intertwine into a Möbius bond of ideas.

Quote:

Robbers don't fear death like we do.

They are only human, with an intact survival instinct. They are desperate, or corrupted, and wish to enrich themselves by taking from others - but I doubt that most of them are prepared to have themselves or others die for that.

Quote:

Nobody can deny anymore that society is screwed up. And the reason is that we are pansies. We have too many weaknesses, and the "cheaters at life" are not exactly cheaters, they are people who know how to pick on our flaws.

I disagree most vehemently. They are people who are either desperate and, for reasons of their own, be it honor or something, refuse to get official help - or corrupted ones who have little regard or respect for the society others worked hard to achieve, for themselves and others. We are not pansies, we have respect.

There are two choices of reading matter at this point.

One is "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. I would love to voice my prejudices against him here, but that would be very unprofessional.

The other one would be "The Kindness of Strangers" by the Dalai Lama.

Laters, CFH

Quote:

I daresay, if it's a dickish company not being fair, take the stuff to make up for it.

And only serve to perpetrate the circle of exploitation ? Doing evil unto evil ? I think that that is highly inadvisable.

I would go on, but

A) I don't wanna sit and type for another two hours,
and
B)Lunch break in almost over.

School has made me into an intelligent, logically arguing person. :>

But it takes so much time. :<

By the way, I highly congratulate Digibutter on having some nice, intelligent, polite discussion.

EDIT: I would once again like to highlight this very good quote from Plato, courtesy of my ToK Teacher:

Plato wrote:

“The philosopher Plato pointed out that ethical egoism does not suggest that stealing, cheating, and dishonesty are moral behaviours, because these things wouldn’t make you happier in the long term. By behaving selfishly, you will suffer fear of being caught, possibly punishment, and even in the unlikely event you achieve your goals in this way, you will enjoy the achievement far less than someone who made it there the hard way. Selfish actions will rebound on you, and in the long term you would have been better off by avoiding selfish behaviour.” (p. 238, first edition / Alchin, Nicholas: theory of knowledge // Chapter 11 “Ethics”)

EDIT 2: There is another wall-of-text philosophy excerpt which I haven't read yet. If people are interested (It is entitled "Ethics in a changing world", and addresses many of the issues of selfishness in our changing society) I will gladly post it.

CFH
Ligador

Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 5136

HP: 100 MP: 6 Lives: 2

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:26 am

Zelnor wrote:

Quote:

We built policies and rules over time by mixing up our own desires. And that's another occourance of selfishness not being bad -- a lot of selfishness mixed up, bang, civilisation and peace. At least for some time.

Zelnor wrote:

But, most importantly, it depends on the situation. Everyone does small selfish moves everyday. That doesn't make everyone bad. And it's also because usually these actions are VERY small and don't bring bad consequences to anyone.

Zelnor wrote:

Yes. And that's the place makind got to with selfishness. With selfishness, we left prehistory, but as civilisation grew, it was knocked over by selfish men. History is craploaded with these, and their numbers grow as history and technology progresses.

Zelnor wrote:

The connection to medicine is, if I just let a sabertiger attack me, I'm dead. There is no miraculous surgery to make me live again; I'm just flat-out dead. We domesticated wolves because, as you said, they can hunt; not only that, we also domesticated other animals to eat them. And we still do it. See: farms. Lastly, exact truth -- survival is the primordial selfishness that latches into us and refuses to leave, no matter how much we became used to easier survival. It's because of our sense of survival that we fear death so much, and it's why we become sad when somebody dies, but not as much when somebody leaves for another country forever and you never get to see them again.

And then there is the famous question only a fake moralist can try to poke through. You and somebody else are locked into a room, with absolutely no escape. You have a gun. He has a gun. Both guns are loaded with one shot. First to kill the other leaves room. What do you do?

Zelnor wrote:

First of all, we invented teamwork. That, too, may have been selfish - I may have to share the prey, but I have a much lower chance of being the prey.

We invented teamwork, why? Because we failed to overcome our weaknesses alone. We weren't the firsts, either. A famous example is the velociraptor(sp?), a dinosaur that ganged up on prey to get it; with this method, they could drop even a T-Rex.

[quote="Zelnor"]Yes, and this is important: You live in an unselfish society. If people annoy you, you as a developed mammal are expected to solve that conflict without violence, and especially without killing your "opponent". If you are hungry, we provide for you. If you need a home, there is shelter. We expect you to pay the "collective" of society back, but we care. Because.

Quote:

Because we can't up and change the rules just to personally screw you. Except if I'm blackmailing enough politicians.

[quote="Zelnor"]In this context, I wonder if we should really call it selfishness or survival. In those times, we needed to steal others and sucker punch evolution. Today, we provide for ourselves, have a vast network of economies in order to advance ourselves, and even found the time and resources to treat other animals to the same kindness that we give our own species.

Survival is selfish, then again. However, I guess the biggest justification to all the sucker punches and steals would be that, in prehistory, Olimar's chain of thought worked perfectly -- they cheated so much all we could do was cheat along.

Zelnor wrote:

I, being from a country with lots of poor people, know enough to imagine that just being born in one of those "poor towns" is enough to make you prepared to die whenever, be it a loose bullet or one aimed specifically at you.

Zelnor wrote:

That's actually right. But whether we are pansies or respectful people, doesn't change what they are.

Zelnor wrote:

Plato wrote:

Cheaters nowadays learned to get around that. Either they keep doing it for so long they never have a chance to up and regret it, or they die soon so they won't live to regret it.

Token Nazi?
Zelnor

Joined: 01 Jul 2007
Posts: 6425

HP: 10 MP: 7 Lives: 1

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:31 pm

I guess in that particular case it's a matter of personal ideals. I am an optimistic person, so I may be blinding myself a little, but I think we've grown beyond widespread selfishness. And even if we do selfish things, at least a common interest drives us and good for someone else comes from it. So even if selfish (nearly wrote shellfish there, lol) things are done, they have unselfish consequences. sparkly eyed idealist

Display posts from previous:

	digibutter.nerr Forum Index -> General Discussion
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2