What is GOOD?

[genkaus]

Oh I see the difference alright, I'm just not buying it. The real difference is you want your rational deliberations on morality to steer not just your actions but your objectives as well -perhaps even your life's purpose?

Correct.

I'm only willing to consider the effects of my actions on others as a possible limitation on my actions. In no way do I look to empathy to inform the larger goals, projects I undertake let alone my purposes in life.

Then empathy must not be the only basis for your morality.

I don't despise rationality. I prefer to see rationality kept in its proper place. Like Einstein I think that "the intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant."

You cannot reason your way to an ought and you do yourself a disservice by trying. You're all too eager to constrain your humanity with your rationality for my liking. We're all adults here so knock yourself out if this is what floats your boat.

a) I thunk I did just reason my way to an ought - and you didn't give me a reason why that was wrong.
and b) I'm not constraining humanity with 'my' rationality - that would go against my morality.

Lots of things feel good. You can't get where you're trying to go from here.

Did you miss the point or did you simply forget the argument? The fact that a lot of children are taught to act consciously upon their empathetic instincts with expectation of emotional gratification shows that that reward is a significant factor in someone consciously choosing to act out of empathy - a point that I made before and which you asserted had no justification.

I think we are both shrinking from the other in horror, aren't we? You must think I am a kind of moral monster who insists on living by unthinking instinct while I think you wish to abandon your humanity to your rationality rendering you pretty much a prig.

Given your assumption that you are the one opting to live by unthinking instinct and I'm the one opting for rationality - that would make you the one who has abandoned his humanity and me the one who has embraced it.

But I must not completely understand your position since earlier you said:

I cannot live my life always considering the wants and needs of others and if I start going so unconsciously, I would simply become the ultimate doormat whose every action is automatically determined by what others would want from him.

For a guy who doesn't want to wind up a doormat you sure seem eager to figure out what you should do. Will you leave any room at all for serendipity?

How is that relevant?

And this is what I don't think you can do in the final and universal manner you seem intent on.

Your thoughts are irrelevant unless you can back them up.

Oh, and it is a false dichotomy to try and distinguish this pushy 'ought' of yours from "taking into consideration the well being of others". If it isn't for others, why exactly are you seeking an 'ought' instead of a whim?

Because my life cannot be lived on a whim.

Sorry but I don't think your project has any real chance of success and nothing I've read so far shows me you even understand what my objections are.

Bare assertion. Provide justification.

That's just it. I don't argue that one should adopt my approach. When I gave the basis for my morality I was confessing an entirely personal truth, not arguing for any ought. Whether anyone approaches morality the same way is for them to say. However, I don't seek the 'ought' which you seek and I don't think it exists.

Thank you for proving my point. Saying that the choice of your moral basis is a 'personal truth' not necessarily applicable to anyone else is the same as saying that those choices are arbitrary and whimsical. Since you cannot provide a justification for them nor do you expect there to be such a justification, you cannot expect anyone else to accept them.

As it is, this statement raises a few more interesting questions about you:

a) Given that you do not consider your morality to be applicable to others and you seem unwilling to correct any flaws and contradictions in your own - what is the point of this discussion to begin with? Why would you start a debate when no argument is going to change anyone's mind?

b) I'm assuming this, but given that you are an atheist, I'd expect that you'd want your own beliefs to have justification. How do you reconcile disbelieving in god because there is no justification for one with your beliefs in morality which are also without justification?

You'll have to show me where I've lied to myself. I don't see it. I've merely have not given morality the paramount position in my motivations that you have. I think you fool yourself to think you even can do so - but if I'm wrong and you actually succeed in allowing your moral code to dictate your life, then I would not want to trade places with you.

Right here, actually. I'm assuming this stuff, I'd say that you haven't killed anyone even if you wanted to, you tend to buy things rather that just take what you want, you don't go about attacking people who make you angry, you avoid acting whimsically and think about your future - I'd say that its because your morality plays a significant role in which motivations you choose to act upon and which you don't that all this is true. But, the fact that you deny it to yourself would mean that you are lying to yourself.

Another example, as given above, would be that if your position as an atheist is based on absence of justification for a theist's position then why isn't the same standard applicable to your moral beliefs? Contradictions within a worldview cannot be resolved without a degree of self-deception.