FA+
Shop
Who is the immoral one?
13 years ago
I'm constantly hearing from people how evil it is to be selfish, and I'm constantly lectured on how bad I am because I don't seem to care about others (with the person rarely defining the term "care") and because I'm not willing to sacrifice anything in my life to "help others" (ignoring the fact that I'm a volunteer firefighter and EMT). So, let me lay out something to those who make such claims:
You have one person who openly declares that yes, he is selfish, in that he looks out for his own interests while leaving other people alone. He asks nothing of others except that they respect his right to live his life as he wishes, so long as he doesn't initiate force against others, a courtesy he grants to others. Yes, he does demand that he be allowed to keep all the fruit of his labor because, after all, it was his time, energy and intelligence that earned it, hence he fully believes that he has a right to it and recognizes no one else's right to it unless they had a hand in helping him earn it. Though he may find the views of some people wrong, he doesn't seek to impose his views on others and is generally indifferent to what others believe so long as they do not force their beliefs on him. He rejects the idea that anyone else is responsible for his needs and wants or that he is responsible for the needs and wants of others, and he backs up his words with action by paying his own way in life.
Next, you have another person who believes that anyone who doesn't work to better the lives of the poor, or doesn't donate to his community, or believes that they owe nothing to their fellow man, etc is immoral. Not only does he believe them to be so, he feels it is his duty to punish them for such beliefs and force them to follow what he believes is moral, taking action to do so either on his own or petitioning others (ie, the government) to do so on his behalf. He tolerates no opposition to his views and no half-measures; you either fully believe what he believes or you're immoral, regardless of what your actions (hence, if you donate your time to your community because you selfishly enjoy it and not solely for the good of others, you're still wrong).
Who is the immoral one here? The selfish one who simply wishes to be left alone and live his life as he pleases (again, so long as he doesn't initiate force against others), or the "unselfish" one who has aligned with some "moral cause" (which most of the anti-selfish crowd seem to flock to) and insists other people follow his views, punishing them if they don't do so?
Just a little food for thought.
You have one person who openly declares that yes, he is selfish, in that he looks out for his own interests while leaving other people alone. He asks nothing of others except that they respect his right to live his life as he wishes, so long as he doesn't initiate force against others, a courtesy he grants to others. Yes, he does demand that he be allowed to keep all the fruit of his labor because, after all, it was his time, energy and intelligence that earned it, hence he fully believes that he has a right to it and recognizes no one else's right to it unless they had a hand in helping him earn it. Though he may find the views of some people wrong, he doesn't seek to impose his views on others and is generally indifferent to what others believe so long as they do not force their beliefs on him. He rejects the idea that anyone else is responsible for his needs and wants or that he is responsible for the needs and wants of others, and he backs up his words with action by paying his own way in life.
Next, you have another person who believes that anyone who doesn't work to better the lives of the poor, or doesn't donate to his community, or believes that they owe nothing to their fellow man, etc is immoral. Not only does he believe them to be so, he feels it is his duty to punish them for such beliefs and force them to follow what he believes is moral, taking action to do so either on his own or petitioning others (ie, the government) to do so on his behalf. He tolerates no opposition to his views and no half-measures; you either fully believe what he believes or you're immoral, regardless of what your actions (hence, if you donate your time to your community because you selfishly enjoy it and not solely for the good of others, you're still wrong).
Who is the immoral one here? The selfish one who simply wishes to be left alone and live his life as he pleases (again, so long as he doesn't initiate force against others), or the "unselfish" one who has aligned with some "moral cause" (which most of the anti-selfish crowd seem to flock to) and insists other people follow his views, punishing them if they don't do so?
Just a little food for thought.
Does it mean lawful, philosophically moral, or beneficial to the society?
Ifn ye believe morality jus means 'whatever anyone says is moral or immoral to themselves' then BOTH are moral because they both say and believe they are.
Ifn morality means philosophic morality then unselfishness is generally thought of as immorality so no matter how nice one party is and how mean the other...the unselfish one is morally right from a purely definitional perspective.
As for being beneficial to society, the selfish party helps themselves and the selfless party helps others so again they would be considered moral.
What standard are ye usin that makes party one moral and party two immoral? Jus curious ^^;
In my example, the first person doesn't deny anyone the right to think and choose how they live their life. He doesn't initiate force against anyone, and the only time he uses force is in self-defence against those who initiate against him. Yes, he's selfish, but in being selfish and only caring about his own interests and not caring what other people believe or don't believe, he is allowing them the freedom to think and drawn their own conclusions about how they will live their life. What many people see as him not caring about others is really him allowing others the freedom to live their lives as they wish, for that is what freedom really is about; it's minding one's own business in matters that do not involve the use of force against him/her.
The second person, in initiating force against others, is preventing them from being able to reason and freely choose how they will live their life. Because they face punishment for deviating from his views, they are not free to form their own, thus they are not able to reason, thus their ability to live their lives is severely hampered.
Essentially, their individual beliefs are irrelevant (hence why I didn't specify an exact belief for the second person). What separates them is that the first one is content to hold his own beliefs and leave others free to follow theirs, while the second one insists that everyone else follow his beliefs and uses force to make them do so. It would be no different if he believed the poor didn't deserve help and used force to prevent people from helping them, or if he believed donating one's time to one's community was a waste of time and used force to prevent others from doing it. It's not his beliefs that make him wrong, but how he carries them out.
(Um...nazis were rational beings. Soviets who starved their own people to death were rational beings.)
And because reason is the only means a rational being can survive, anything which denies a person the ability to freely reason (ie, to think) and act on his own judgement is immoral.
(Anything? So laws and parents and rules are all immoral?)
In my example, the first person doesn't deny anyone the right to think and choose how they live their life.
He doesn't initiate force against anyone, and the only time he uses force is in self-defence against those who initiate against him.
(So the definition of moral is doing nothing, but doing nothing wrong?)
Yes, he's selfish, but in being selfish and only caring about his own interests and not caring what other people believe or don't believe, he is allowing them the freedom to think and drawn their own conclusions about how they will live their life.
(What about others who do try to stop people from believing or thinking? This person is doing nothing to help anybody, he's just actively not doing anything to hinder them. It's like saying a person is building a house when all he's doing is not knocking it down)
What many people see as him not caring about others is really him allowing others the freedom to live their lives as they wish, for that is what freedom really is about; it's minding one's own business in matters that do not involve the use of force against him/her.
(In history freedom has meant fighting those who wanted to deny others freedom)
The second person, in initiating force against others, is preventing them from being able to reason and freely choose how they will live their life.
(Again, all laws are immoral?)
Because they face punishment for deviating from his views, they are not free to form their own, thus they are not able to reason, thus their ability to live their lives is severely hampered.
(So no one should be judged about anything?
Rationality is applied reasoning because of judging things. You can't be rational and not judge anything.)
Essentially, their individual beliefs are irrelevant (hence why I didn't specify an exact belief for the second person).
What separates them is that the first one is content to hold his own beliefs and leave others free to follow theirs, while the second one insists that everyone else follow his beliefs and uses force to make them do so.
(So it doesn't matter what you believe. As long as you don't do anything bad you're good. Also you cannot act on what you believe or you're immoral)
It would be no different if he believed the poor didn't deserve help and used force to prevent people from helping them
or if he believed donating one's time to one's community was a waste of time and used force to prevent others from doing it.
(Actually it's quite different. Having cops force you to not commit crimes is different from having cops force you to commit crimes)
It's not his beliefs that make him wrong, but how he carries them out.
(And wrong here just means anything rational?
Because rationality is judging...so is rationality itself immoral?)
No, they weren't. Man is a meant to be a rational being, but he also has the ability to choose not to be rational; however, nature will soon show him the folly of that.
"(Anything? So laws and parents and rules are all immoral?)"
Captain, I'm going to give you a fair warning: It really irritates me when people I debate with do not use their own ability to think and I have to spell everything out for them. Please do not be one of these people.
For starters, which laws? If you're talking about laws that regulate personal behaviors that don't initiate force against others (ie, anti-abortion laws, anti-drug laws, anti-obesity law etc), then yes they are wrong. A woman getting an abortion isn't initiating force against anyone; it's her body and she can do with it what she wants. A person who does crack isn't initiating force against anyone; it's his body and he can do with it what he wants. A person who wants to gorge himself to obesity isn't initiating force against anyone; it's his body and he can do with it what he wants. These laws take away a person's freedom of action in his life, so they fall under what prevents a person from living his life, hence they are immoral.
However, laws against murder, theft, rape, etc are not initiating force against anyone, but recognizing their right to be free of such things. There is no right to initiate force against others outside of rational self-defence, ergo there is no immorality in laws forbidding people from doing such things.
Parents are a different case. Young children do not yet have the mental capicity to make rational choices all the time, hence they need someone to guide them and prevent them from endangering themselves. However, they still hold claim to the right to be free from the iniation of force, ergo parents do not have the right to abuse them.
"(What about others who do try to stop people from believing or thinking? This person is doing nothing to help anybody, he's just actively not doing anything to hinder them. It's like saying a person is building a house when all he's doing is not knocking it down)"
He would be right in defending people's right to think and act freely from such people, but he has no duty to do so. A person can join a pro-abortion group to defend a woman's right to an abortion, but he has no duty to do so. However, the people he is defending can do it themselves just as easily, can't they?
No offense, Captain, but you're talking about people as if they are simply helpless creatures, trapped in a world of pain and suffering, unable to do anything unless someone else helps them. I'm sorry, but I do not share that low view of my fellow man. Respecting the right of others to live their life as they wish includes respecting their ability to do so themselves.
"(In history freedom has meant fighting those who wanted to deny others freedom)"
History has been wrong on many things, Captain. And one fights for freedom to defend his own freedom along with the freedom of others, not solely for the freedom of others. America entered WWII because our own freedom was in danger, not because we were only defending Europe's freedom.
"(So no one should be judged about anything?
Rationality is applied reasoning because of judging things. You can't be rational and not judge anything.)"
No, one should judge and prepare to be judged. However, judging others doesn't automatically mean passing punishment on others. I believe the religious are foolish and living their lives by a lie (I should mention my own parents and grandparents are religious), but because their beliefs do not interfere with my right to live my life, I have no right to punish them for their beliefs. I believe people who are racist are wrong, but so long as they only express racist beliefs and do not put those beliefs into action against others, I have no right to punish them for their beliefs. As I said earlier, it is not the belief that makes one wrong and in need of punishment, but how that belief is carried out.
"So it doesn't matter what you believe. As long as you don't do anything bad you're good. Also you cannot act on what you believe or you're immoral"
Read my words, captain: AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT INITIATE FORCE AGAINST OTHERS, you are free to believe whatever you wish.
No, (the nazis) weren't (rational).
(So the nazis did not make their own decisions?)
Man is a meant to be a rational being
(And this is written...where?)
but he also has the ability to choose not to be rational; however, nature will soon show him the folly of that.
(Nature and rationality aren't the same thing. It's natural impulse to rape, steal and kill but rationality prevents people from doing that. So nature shows the folly of...acting naturally?)
Captain, I'm going to give you a fair warning: It really irritates me when people I debate with do not use their own ability to think and I have to spell everything out for them. Please do not be one of these people.
(The Capn' is usin his ability to think here, in fact he's askin question ye will not ^^;
Ifn all restrictions on the actions and freedoms of others = immorality then law, which is restriction on actions and freedoms, is immoral. That's not NOT thinkin, that is askin questions.)
For starters, which laws? If you're talking about laws that regulate personal behaviors that don't initiate force against others (ie, anti-abortion laws, anti-drug laws, anti-obesity law etc), then yes they are wrong.
(There's laws against stealing which doesn't technically count as force. There's also laws against not going to school, laws against not paying taxes and laws against littering)
A woman getting an abortion isn't initiating force against anyone; it's her body and she can do with it what she wants.
(The kid doesn't count)
A person who does crack isn't initiating force against anyone; it's his body and he can do with it what he wants.
(Crack can lead to violent crime against others)
A person who wants to gorge himself to obesity isn't initiating force against anyone; it's his body and he can do with it what he wants.
(So why is prostitution illegal?)
These laws take away a person's freedom of action in his life, so they fall under what prevents a person from living his life, hence they are immoral.
(Why is living your life any way you want to considered moral? That doesn't fall under rationality.)
However, laws against murder, theft, rape, etc are not initiating force against anyone, but recognizing their right to be free of such things. There is no right to initiate force against others outside of rational self-defence, ergo there is no immorality in laws forbidding people from doing such things.
(Um...again where is this written?
What if something like alcohol? Technically drinking is a personally choice but it can also lead to hurting others. What side should the law err on?)
Parents are a different case. Young children do not yet have the mental capicity to make rational choices all the time, hence they need someone to guide them and prevent them from endangering themselves.
(Ah...so some people DO NOT have the right to think for themselves...)
However, they still hold claim to the right to be free from the iniation (initiation) of force, ergo parents do not have the right to abuse them.
(So parents have no rights to send them to their rooms or take away their game systems? Many kids call that abuse.)
He would be right in defending people's right to think and act freely from such people, but he has no duty to do so.
(So wait...
Everyone else has a duty to support people to do anything they want to...but no one has the right to support people who are in danger of losing their right to do what they want to?
In other words YE are to be defended and justified for doing anything ye want to by others.
But ye have no obligation to help others.
Okay...)
A person can join a pro-abortion group to defend a woman's right to an abortion, but he has no duty to do so. However, the people he is defending can do it themselves just as easily, can't they?
(The Capn' supposes, but it seems like saying 'it can take care of itself'.
In many periods of history sayin 'it can take care of itself' would mean a LOT of problems.
Also ye are literally saying 'I don't have to do anything I want to do because others can do it for me, and I'm moral for letting them do things I don't want to do')
No offense, Captain, but you're talking about people as if they are simply helpless creatures, trapped in a world of pain and suffering, unable to do anything unless someone else helps them.
(That's often the case.
'In order for evil to triumph, good men must do nothing')
I'm sorry, but I do not share that low view of my fellow man. Respecting the right of others to live their life as they wish includes respecting their ability to do so themselves.
(You do have a low opinion of people though.
Children aren't smart enough to make their own decisions, people who mean well morally are really corrupt and self serving, and abortions don't cause anybody to die who matters)
History has been wrong on many things, Captain.
(Wrong here meaning...ye don't agree with it?)
And one fights for freedom to defend his own freedom along with the freedom of others, not solely for the freedom of others. America entered WWII because our own freedom was in danger, not because we were only defending Europe's freedom.
(Wasn't the whole purpose of your journal to claim that selfishness was moral?
So apparently if America does something selfish then it's 'wrong'
If you do something selfish you should be praised)
No, one should judge and prepare to be judged.
(Um...apparently not because we're supposed to consider you moral just by virtue of existing)
However, judging others doesn't automatically mean passing punishment on others.
(You said you even considered negative opinions foolish)
I believe the religious are foolish and living their lives by a lie
(Huh...that sounds like judging and punishment via negative opinion to Ol'Squeaks...)
(I should mention my own parents and grandparents are religious), but because their beliefs do not interfere with my right to live my life, I have no right to punish them for their beliefs.
(Ye do have a right to attack them in journals)
I believe people who are racist are wrong, but so long as they only express racist beliefs and do not put those beliefs into action against others, I have no right to punish them for their beliefs.
(Apparently ye don't even feel the need to punish or judge them at all unless they personally effect YE)
As I said earlier, it is not the belief that makes one wrong and in need of punishment, but how that belief is carried out.
(Actually ye have basically stated beliefs don't matter as long as others leave ye alone to do whatever ye want to)
Read my words, captain: AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT INITIATE FORCE AGAINST OTHERS, you are free to believe whatever you wish.
(But ye said above that initiating force to prevent others from doing things that could impact people negatively was okay...)
Ifn ye are going to be logical and reasonable then there's nothin to forgive :)
But ifn ye want to cease the discussion, that's fine too.