Science vs Morality

[Mozart Link]

Now go ahead and tell me which would be better: 1.) Having no pleasure, but having the thought that you are a human being who has worth, or 2.) Having all the pleasure in the world that you are a human being who has worth? The 2nd choice would obviously be better because you obviously, again, would be a mere emotionless robot with no pleasure with just a thought. The concept of something being "better" means more worth. Therefore, since having pleasure would be better than just having a thought with no pleasure, you would have no worth if you had no pleasure.

Better in what regard? "Better" is not equivalent to "having more worth".

A car is better than a human being in getting us to places. But a human being is better than a car in giving us advices.

A car would have more worth (just in that specific sense) and a human being would have more worth too (again, just in that specific example you gave). But since pleasure is the best part of you better than any amount of other brain function or capabilities combined (again, best meaning having the most worth), then for you to have no pleasure means you basically have no worth. Again, for you to decide that other areas of the brain have more value than pleasure and that you would sacrifice your pleasure in order to keep your intelligence and such means you have no comprehension of what it would feel like to lose all your pleasure. It would be worse than death because at least when you are dead, you don't have any such painful realization that you have lost the greatest part of you.

[GrandizerII]

Better in what regard? "Better" is not equivalent to "having more worth".

A car is better than a human being in getting us to places. But a human being is better than a car in giving us advices.

A car would have more worth (just in that specific sense) and a human being would have more worth too (again, just in that specific example you gave). But since pleasure is the best part of you better than any amount of other brain function or capabilities combined (again, best meaning having the most worth), then for you to have no pleasure means you basically have no worth. Again, for you to decide that other areas of the brain have more value than pleasure and that you would sacrifice your pleasure in order to keep your intelligence and such means you have no comprehension of what it would feel like to lose all your pleasure. It would be worse than death because at least when you are dead, you don't have any such painful realization that you have lost the greatest part of you.

I am not saying pleasure is not important, nor am I arguing it's not the most important thing a rational being could have (it may very well be). What I'm arguing is that the worth of an entity is not something that exists independent of one's rating of its worth. So it is subjective and does not have to depend on how much a person can experience pleasure.

Science has no say in this matter exactly because worth is subjective. What may be trash to one is a treasure to someone else.

[ignoramus]

I think your ideas are not that far removed from Freud's "Id" theories.
You may have better clarity on a psychology forum.

[Losty]

I just can't even argue the subject when you're saying that this shit is scientifically proven when it is obviously not.

[GrandizerII]

I think your ideas are not that far removed from Freud's "Id" theories.
You may have better clarity on a psychology forum.

It's hard, even for psychologists today, to take Freud seriously. Not every psychologist today espouses the psychodynamic view.

Also, the Id theory is outdated and too simplistic.

[ManMachine]

It's a scientific fact that people who have all the pleasure in the world with a sense of superiority are better people than those who are depressed and humble. If you have less pleasure, that makes you less of a person according to science because who you are is your brain and all of its processes and also the fact that greater is "better" when it comes to science. If, for example, you have a computer that has greater RAM and such than others' computers, then your computer would be better than their computers. Therefore, if you have a mind that has greater activity and capabilities, that makes you a better person. But as for someone who has greater intelligence than someone who has greater pleasure, the scientific fact is that pleasure is the greatest thing above any function in the brain because our personal experience of this emotion obviously says so (it is a natural conclusion that we make because without pleasure, then you would obviously be completely dead inside and no one would ever want that). You would obviously sacrifice your intelligence and all other areas of your brain if it meant not losing all of your pleasure. And for you to state otherwise would obviously mean you have no comprehension whatsoever of what it would feel like to lose all of your pleasure.

Therefore, since pleasure is the greatest function of the brain, if you have less pleasure, that makes you less of a person regardless of how much activity or capabilities you have in other parts of your brain.

Have you got a source for this?

MM

[ignoramus]

I think your ideas are not that far removed from Freud's "Id" theories.
You may have better clarity on a psychology forum.

It's hard, even for psychologists today, to take Freud seriously. Not every psychologist today espouses the psychodynamic view.

Also, the Id theory is outdated and too simplistic.

Outdated! Don't tell my mother! She enjoys my company!

[Cato]

It's clear that someone still has yet to educate themselves regarding Hedonism.

[Mister Agenda]

But again, you haven't scientifically explained how pleasure itself should be a measure of someone's worth.

Because without pleasure, then you will have no sense of worth about yourself or others. And if others didn't have pleasure, they would have no sense of worth either.

So how does it follow that we should be selfish and not care about others, if one of the things that gives us pleasure is helping others? It's not the hedonism that puts you on a logic derail, it's the cynicism.

And this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Ma...TrollLogic

[Wyrd of Gawd]

If everyone was truly equal to everyone else then there would be no need to ever help anyone. That's because all would have the same abilities and if you helped someone then they would become more than you. In our current environment we help people because they are not equal to us in some area but we get more value out of giving help than we do in receiving help. It allows us to feel magnanimous and even superior to the one we are helping. It's essentially a selfish act.

As it says in Proverbs 25:21-22 (CEB) = "21 If your enemies are starving, feed them some bread;
if they are thirsty, give them water to drink.
22 By doing this, you will heap burning coals on their heads,
and the Lord will reward you."