Philosophy Now Forum

It seems nowadays that everybody is out for himself rather than the good of the community.

PhilX

.





...............................................






What do you mean by morality?


What is right & wrong for you, in your world?





.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.





...............................................






What do you mean by morality?


What is right & wrong for you, in your world?





.

The golden rule comes closest in a succinct way (but I don't mean literally that I'll scratch a woman's back to have her scratch mine).

I also mean that if a machine has a bad part, we dispose of it which to me is the same as executing a murderer so that we don't have to support him/her nor have to worry about a possible escape nor an early release from prison regardless of his state of mind.

PhilX

First of all, the golden rule is an ethic. And it doesn't mean the same thing as doing something to get something, ala scratching backs.

Aside from that Phil, the OP is nebulous, and should be refined. Otherwise it could easily branch into a general discussion of ethics, and go nowhere.

That's not an attack. That's a statement of likelihood.

Dalek Prime wrote:First of all, the golden rule is an ethic. And it doesn't mean the same thing as doing something to get something, ala scratching backs.

Aside from that Phil, the OP is nebulous, and should be refined. Otherwise it could easily branch into a general discussion of ethics, and go nowhere.

That's not an attack. That's a statement of likelihood.

You can easily say the same thing about this category being unclear. If I refine it then there may be members who'll feel that the thread won't be relevant to them. Why not pick out what is it about morality that holds relevance to you?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:It seems nowadays that everybody is out for himself rather than the good of the community.

PhilX

Change your friends, Phil. I don't know anybody like that.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:It seems nowadays that everybody is out for himself rather than the good of the community.

PhilX

Change your friends, Phil. I don't know anybody like that.

It's always been like that Leo except it seems to have gotten more intense. This is the Age of Specialty where almost everyone acts in his/her self-interest.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:First of all, the golden rule is an ethic. And it doesn't mean the same thing as doing something to get something, ala scratching backs.

Aside from that Phil, the OP is nebulous, and should be refined. Otherwise it could easily branch into a general discussion of ethics, and go nowhere.

That's not an attack. That's a statement of likelihood.

You can easily say the same thing about this category being unclear. If I refine it then there may be members who'll feel that the thread won't be relevant to them. Why not pick out what is it about morality that holds relevance to you?

PhilX

I do. I try to live according to the golden rule, and my antinatalist ethics.

Anyways, so you suppose that acting in self-interest is a new thing? Or has it always been, and you are just aware of your era? The good old days are indeed old, but were they so good? The grass is greener...

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:It seems nowadays that everybody is out for himself rather than the good of the community.

PhilX

Change your friends, Phil. I don't know anybody like that.

It's always been like that Leo except it seems to have gotten more intense. This is the Age of Specialty where almost everyone acts in his/her self-interest.

PhilX

As I said, Phil, I don't know any people like that. However I know plenty of people like you who would say this but when questioned closely it turns out that they don't know anybody like that either. What do you suppose might be the origin of this myth?

Obvious Leo wrote:
Change your friends, Phil. I don't know anybody like that.

Philx wrote:
It's always been like that Leo except it seems to have gotten more intense. This is the Age of Specialty where almost everyone acts in his/her self-interest.

PhilX

Obvious Leo wrote:
As I said, Phil, I don't know any people like that. However I know plenty of people like you who would say this but when questioned closely it turns out that they don't know anybody like that either. What do you suppose might be the origin of this myth?

Life experience. I think I'll run a thread on this.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Life experience. I think I'll run a thread on this.

This is nobody's life experience, no matter how shitty a life they've had.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Life experience. I think I'll run a thread on this.

This is nobody's life experience, no matter how shitty a life they've had.

Do you speak for everyone?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Do you speak for everyone?

Of course I don't but I've already told you that I've never known anybody who would say otherwise and I would be quite willing to declare anybody who does say otherwise to be mistaken. Humans simply don't behave like that because if they did they would have become extinct before they climbed down from the trees.

Obvious Leo wrote:... they would have become extinct before they climbed down from the trees.

If only...

Dalek Prime wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:... they would have become extinct before they climbed down from the trees.

If only...

I'm sure you're smart enough to get my point, Dalek. Homo managed to claw his way to the top of the tree of sentience precisely BECAUSE of his ability to co-operate with others of his own kind rather than serve only his own selfish interest. All social species do this because it is this behavioural feature which defines them as social. This is actually more true for homo sapiens now than it has ever been in our entire history.

What Phil is referring to is not a flaw in the nature of homo but a flaw in the way we have engineered our power structures. We allow ourselves to be forced to behave contrary to our own best interests as well as contrary to the best interests of our fellow man. We have willingly enslaved ourselves to a way of life which makes most people unhappy and thus they're just looking for somebody else to blame. Rich people blame poor people and poor people blame rich people. We blame the poofters and the dykes and the kikes and the niggers and the women and all the morons who pray to the wrong gods.
We should save ourselves all the trouble and just head for the nearest mirror if we're looking for somebody to blame for the life we're living.