Toward an understanding of the tenacity of the politics of others....

[CycloWizard]

Despite what Moonbeam may think, the difference between politics is fairly simple, as far as conservatives vs liberals. Conservatives want to conserve (socially and fiscally), and their politics are based upon self-interest. Liberals are also self-interested, but not completely. Liberals are willing to give more at the expense of themselves. Conservatives are only willing to give to benefit themselves (indirectly or directly).

The difference between the conservative perspective and yours is pretty easily stated using the structure of your post:

Conservative and their politics are based upon self-determination. Liberals also believe in self determination for themselves but want to impose their self-determined values on others. Liberals are willing to give, but only if everyone else is forced to give, too. Conservatives are willing to give, but only if they get to choose the benefactor.

This is a fundamental disconnect in the mentalities of the two camps. The liberal mind feels that it is generous because it is willing to pay taxes to support those who they consider needy. They believe this so firmly that they feel that everyone else must feel the same way unless they are simply being greedy. They see government as the best vehicle to accomplish the task of leveling the playing field and treat it like a charity.

The conservative, on the other hand, feels that he is generous because he gives to private charities of his choosing to support those who they consider needy. They believe that this choice is personal so strongly that it is difficult to understand why anyone would want to insert government between the giver and the receiver. They see the government as the biggest obstacle to charity.

The paradox of the liberal is that he believes that people may be trusted to behave as they please in a social sense, but that similar trust cannot be extended to financial matters: the role of government is to dictate financial matters. The paradox of the conservative is that he feels that people may be trusted in financial matters, but not in social matters: the role of the government is to dictate ethics and morals.

Thus, the populists and the libertarians may have more coherent positions. The populist believes that self-determination must be limited in both fiscal and social matters, whereas the libertarian thinks that limits on self-determination should be minimized in both cases.

Moonbeam's purpose in starting this thread, I think, was to point out that, in the end, all four groups feel that they are reaching for the same goal. Perhaps we should take a step back and consider that before launching hate-filled diatribes in every post.

 

[Moonbeam]

The difference between the conservative perspective and yours is pretty easily stated using the structure of your post:

Conservative and their politics are based upon self-determination. Liberals also believe in self determination for themselves but want to impose their self-determined values on others. Liberals are willing to give, but only if everyone else is forced to give, too. Conservatives are willing to give, but only if they get to choose the benefactor.

This is a fundamental disconnect in the mentalities of the two camps. The liberal mind feels that it is generous because it is willing to pay taxes to support those who they consider needy. They believe this so firmly that they feel that everyone else must feel the same way unless they are simply being greedy. They see government as the best vehicle to accomplish the task of leveling the playing field and treat it like a charity.

The conservative, on the other hand, feels that he is generous because he gives to private charities of his choosing to support those who they consider needy. They believe that this choice is personal so strongly that it is difficult to understand why anyone would want to insert government between the giver and the receiver. They see the government as the biggest obstacle to charity.

The paradox of the liberal is that he believes that people may be trusted to behave as they please in a social sense, but that similar trust cannot be extended to financial matters: the role of government is to dictate financial matters. The paradox of the conservative is that he feels that people may be trusted in financial matters, but not in social matters: the role of the government is to dictate ethics and morals.

Thus, the populists and the libertarians may have more coherent positions. The populist believes that self-determination must be limited in both fiscal and social matters, whereas the libertarian thinks that limits on self-determination should be minimized in both cases.

Moonbeam's purpose in starting this thread, I think, was to point out that, in the end, all four groups feel that they are reaching for the same goal. Perhaps we should take a step back and consider that before launching hate-filled diatribes in every post.

If this is so and it seems to be, where does it lead you? What I would say is that each of these four types believe that what they believe is the good, and that, because each is different, some are more or less wrong and nobody can quite be sure who. That leads, I think, if one is honest, to modesty. I came to the conclusion that everything I was ever taught is wrong, that everything I was sure was sacred is not. We are attached to what we believe by emotional bonds.

To let go of what we believe creates pain. To not know, to be absent of conviction, however, opens the door to wonder, I should think.

 

[Soltis]

The difference between the conservative perspective and yours is pretty easily stated using the structure of your post:

Conservative and their politics are based upon self-determination. Liberals also believe in self determination for themselves but want to impose their self-determined values on others. Liberals are willing to give, but only if everyone else is forced to give, too. Conservatives are willing to give, but only if they get to choose the benefactor.

This is a fundamental disconnect in the mentalities of the two camps. The liberal mind feels that it is generous because it is willing to pay taxes to support those who they consider needy. They believe this so firmly that they feel that everyone else must feel the same way unless they are simply being greedy. They see government as the best vehicle to accomplish the task of leveling the playing field and treat it like a charity.

The conservative, on the other hand, feels that he is generous because he gives to private charities of his choosing to support those who they consider needy. They believe that this choice is personal so strongly that it is difficult to understand why anyone would want to insert government between the giver and the receiver. They see the government as the biggest obstacle to charity.

The paradox of the liberal is that he believes that people may be trusted to behave as they please in a social sense, but that similar trust cannot be extended to financial matters: the role of government is to dictate financial matters. The paradox of the conservative is that he feels that people may be trusted in financial matters, but not in social matters: the role of the government is to dictate ethics and morals.

Thus, the populists and the libertarians may have more coherent positions. The populist believes that self-determination must be limited in both fiscal and social matters, whereas the libertarian thinks that limits on self-determination should be minimized in both cases.

Moonbeam's purpose in starting this thread, I think, was to point out that, in the end, all four groups feel that they are reaching for the same goal. Perhaps we should take a step back and consider that before launching hate-filled diatribes in every post.

Whether or not any of these systems will ultimately succeed or fail comes down to the virtue of the people involved. I suppose that's rather obvious though.

 

[irishScott]

If this is so and it seems to be, where does it lead you? What I would say is that each of these four types believe that what they believe is the good, and that, because each is different, some are more or less wrong and nobody can quite be sure who. That leads, I think, if one is honest, to modesty. I came to the conclusion that everything I was ever taught is wrong, that everything I was sure was sacred is not. We are attached to what we believe by emotional bonds.

To let go of what we believe creates pain. To not know, to be absent of conviction, however, opens the door to wonder, I should think.

There is no way to be absent of conviction. To do so would be to deny our basic instincts, which is impossible to do so without another set of overriding convictions; and even then is only partially possible.

As for being as absent of moral conviction as a human can get, that is, in my experience, quite dangerous. It makes the mind malleable, vulnerable, and ultimately impotent. While passing through such a phase is necessary to some degree during any personal change, purposefully staying in a moral void will only lead to misery at best and, if one does not have enough constitution to choose a positive path, maladaptive behavior that may be harmful to others as well as the individual. I've literally been there, done it and seen it.

Instead of uncertainty, the best option IMHO is to make your values organic. To have set in stone morals inevitably leads to swarms of failures and inadequacies as your system fails to adequately adapt, and I've already mentioned the dangers of the opposite. To have an organic value system means what it sounds like. The system is not set in stone, but it grows, shrinks and adapts while maintaining it's core constitution. Yes there may come a time where this core constitution needs changing as well, but it is far simpler to worry about changing a system that will partially adapt itself, as opposed to the catastrophic domino effect of changing a concrete system, or the uncertainty of knowing if a change is maladaptive or not, that comes with living in complete moral limbo.

 

[nonlnear]

The difference between the conservative perspective and yours is pretty easily stated using the structure of your post:

Conservative... Liberals...

To be clear I rather dislike the lib/con nomenclature. I was only using it to conform to the verbiage already in play. My description of "liberals" is really a description of statists (or collectivists), be they "liberal" or "conservative". I suspect you saw that quite clearly, however people who are used to lib/con terminology would have probably found the term off-putting.

Thus, the populists and the libertarians may have more coherent positions. The populist believes that self-determination must be limited in both fiscal and social matters, whereas the libertarian thinks that limits on self-determination should be minimized in both cases.

Exactly. (Although I would tweak populist into statist, as a populism is but one flavor of statism.) A statist has no paradoxes once (s)he acknowledges that the statist believes the individual to be worthless as an individual. With this mindset a statist can create a political philosophy that is free from contradictions. I assert that such a philosophy is evil, but the honest statists hold the individual opinion (even their own) in total contempt, so that's not really an issue for them!

Moonbeam's purpose in starting this thread, I think, was to point out that, in the end, all four groups feel that they are reaching for the same goal. Perhaps we should take a step back and consider that before launching hate-filled diatribes in every post.

I think there have been plenty of posts in this thread that are quite honest and relatively devoid of hate. Enough to consider it a success, given that this is the interwebz...

 

[MJinZ]

Moonbeam's purpose in starting this thread, I think, was to point out that, in the end, all four groups feel that they are reaching for the same goal. Perhaps we should take a step back and consider that before launching hate-filled diatribes in every post.

Except they don't have the same goals. That is the point that I'm trying to make.

 

[Moonbeam]

Except they don't have the same goals. That is the point that I'm trying to make.

The goals are not identical goals, but they are the same in that to each the goal they have is what they think is the good.

That is the point I am trying to make. They all have the same goal, the GOOD, as each sees it.

To you perhaps the GOAL of the OTHER is EVIL so we make a demon on the other and fail, thereby, to understand that we have in common with the other an identity of purpose. We go to war against evil instead of entering a debate as to what is really the GOOD, and we do this because we can't entertain doubt about our own position because we can't see that we are emotionally attached to it by ties that run straight down into the unconscious. We are partisan because we were brainwashed as children and do not see it because we were brainwashed by tremendous pain.

This is why folk who do not examine themselves are stuck with being attached to things like beliefs that are only assumptions and not absolutes. They do not see their own motivations or even notice they have them.

So the purpose of this thread is to suggest to folk that if they want to war against evil they will only war with themselves, but if they seek understanding they will need to study themselves. To do so, it would help not to hate the other because the other is the unconscious self and to hate yourself doesn't bode well for self study.

Love of the other for his love of the good is love of the self you know you are for the self you don't want to see.

We are all one and we are all the same. Our war is a war of separation. We were taught to hate and fear our love, that it is too painful to feel. But because we don't feel we are dead.

This contempt for one part of us for another, this inner split, manifests outwardly in the world, the creation of us and them. Ceasing to feed that with total belief in our individual illusions helps cut the fuel to the fire.

But remember that self hate is a tricky thing. It's just as easy to hate yourself if you feed the fire. You can kick yourself for anything.

 

[MJinZ]

The goals are not identical goals, but they are the same in that to each the goal they have is what they think is the good.

That is the point I am trying to make. They all have the same goal, the GOOD, as each sees it.

To you perhaps the GOAL of the OTHER is EVIL so we make a demon on the other and fail, thereby, to understand that we have in common with the other an identity of purpose. We go to war against evil instead of entering a debate as to what is really the GOOD, and we do this because we can't entertain doubt about our own position because we can't see that we are emotionally attached to it by ties that run straight down into the unconscious. We are partisan because we were brainwashed as children and do not see it because we were brainwashed by tremendous pain.

This is why folk who do not examine themselves are stuck with being attached to things like beliefs that are only assumptions and not absolutes. They do not see their own motivations or even notice they have them.

So the purpose of this thread is to suggest to folk that if they want to war against evil they will only war with themselves, but if they seek understanding they will need to study themselves. To do so, it would help not to hate the other because the other is the unconscious self and to hate yourself doesn't bode well for self study.

Love of the other for his love of the good is love of the self you know you are for the self you don't want to see.

We are all one and we are all the same. Our war is a war of separation. We were taught to hate and fear our love, that it is too painful to feel. But because we don't feel we are dead.

This contempt for one part of us for another, this inner split, manifests outwardly in the world, the creation of us and them. Ceasing to feed that with total belief in our individual illusions helps cut the fuel to the fire.

But remember that self hate is a tricky thing. It's just as easy to hate yourself if you feed the fire. You can kick yourself for anything.

Nope - again some people care about the Greater Good, but some people only care about Good .... for themselves. That's the point I'm trying to make. There is a clear difference about wanting what is only "good" for yourself, as opposed to sacrificing (aka accepting the bad) aspect of one's self for the good of others or the good of the whole.

 

[nonlnear]

Nope - again some people care about the Greater Good, but some people only care about Good .... for themselves. That's the point I'm trying to make. There is a clear difference about wanting what is only "good" for yourself, as opposed to sacrificing (aka accepting the bad) aspect of one's self for the good of others or the good of the whole.

Not until you define this "greater good", there isn't. Until then, your "greater good" concept is simply a pretext you use to wield the state's power against those who do not share your particular vision of society. (And after you define it it still will be, but we'll hold off on that point until you come up with a definition...)

I seek no power over you, yet you seek power over me.

 

[MJinZ]

Not until you define this "greater good", there isn't. Until then, your "greater good" concept is simply a pretext you use to wield the state's power against those who do not share your particular vision of society. (And after you define it it still will be, but we'll hold off on that point until you come up with a definition...)

I seek no power over you, yet you seek power over me.

The greater good is the advancement of human society towards the opposite direction of our savage roots. Intelligence > Brutality. Compassion > Hate. It's basically what Moonbeam wants in a nutshell (I think), for everyone to love and blah blah blah

The lesser good is when the person who is only concerned about what avenues he has (political or otherwise) to benefit only himself, what he likes, and what he wants. He doesn't care who he steps on, or what costs are incurred upon others (within the framework of protecting himself - thus he doesn't go around plundering and stealing because he accepts the consequences of Laws). This is not to say he is evil, but he is simply more base.

Of course, there are people that exist who believe only self-concern IS human advancement. They would absolutely fall into the paradigm that Moonbeam has set up (that the groups, no matter what they want, ultimately wants to do the most good). These people are the Hitlers, slave owners, or whatever of our world.

 

[nonlnear]

The greater good is the advancement of human society towards the opposite direction of our savage roots. Intelligence > Brutality. Compassion > Hate.

You have constructed a primordial mythology which I do not accept as necessarily valid. I do not see an overall decline in brutality over human history, only an increasing sophistication in the methods of murder, and increasing subtlety in the lies used to sell oppression to the masses. Whether humanity is evolving or not in whatever moral sense you are implying by the IBCH framework is highly debatable.

Like you I am abhorred by appeals to material right of force. I shun brutality and hatred, and to that end I reject any claim that a person may ever make over the conscience of another. And compelling a person to involuntarily surrender the fruits of their labor to support an externally defined goal is oppression no matter which way you slice it: whether it is Genghis Khan's army raping and pillaging its way across the world, or if it is FDR causing entire generations to rape their grandchildren's future.

The lesser good is when the person who is only concerned about what avenues he has (political or otherwise) to benefit only himself, what he likes, and what he wants.

What other benefit is a person fit to define? If it is wrong for me to pursue my benefit, or if I am somehow unfit to define it, how am I, or how is anyone else fit to evaluate and pursue the benefits of others? I can not benefit others in any way if I am not allowed to benefit myself.

Of course, there are people that exist who believe only self-concern IS human advancement. They would absolutely fall into the paradigm that Moonbeam has set up (that the groups, no matter what they want, ultimately wants to do the most good). These people are the Hitlers, slave owners, or whatever of our world.

You have just described statists. People who seek power over the consciences of others. One who is truly self-interested and holds the sanctity of individual conscience over specific material gains is incapable of hurting another person. I seek my benefit, but only advance it when I am able to find another person who agrees that it is mutually beneficial for us to transact. As long as there is full disclosure of the implicit costs of the transaction, the world can only be improved by such actions.

 

[MJinZ]

You have constructed a primordial mythology which I do not accept as necessarily valid. I do not see an overall decline in brutality over human history, only an increasing sophistication in the methods of murder, and increasing subtlety in the lies used to sell oppression to the masses. Whether humanity is evolving or not in whatever moral sense you are implying by the IBCH framework is highly debatable.

Nope, I'm not arguing that humanity is advancing. In fact, I think humanity's technology has far outpaced the the inner growth and wisdom of human society. Like a child wielding an atomic bomb, we grow closer than ever to hurting ourselves irreparably.

Like you I am abhorred by appeals to material right of force. I shun brutality and hatred, and to that end I reject any claim that a person may ever make over the conscience of another. And compelling a person to involuntarily surrender the fruits of their labor to support an externally defined goal is oppression no matter which way you slice it: whether it is Genghis Khan's army raping and pillaging its way across the world, or if it is FDR causing entire generations to rape their grandchildren's future.

Voluntary is the key word. If we can enlighten our opponents, force of any kind is unnecessary. In fact, like true love, it must come from one's own accord or it is fairly meaningless. Humanity can not advance if our hearts are not in it (but we are forced to put on a show and dance for the sake of charity).

What other benefit is a person fit to define? If it is wrong for me to pursue my benefit, or if I am somehow unfit to define it, how am I, or how is anyone else fit to evaluate and pursue the benefits of others? I can not benefit others in any way if I am not allowed to benefit myself.

In the current state of our world, there are plenty of ways that are clearly evident in which we can pursue the benefit of others. For example, we spend on defense and war machines many times the amount of money than that which would have solved world hunger many times over.

The problem lies in that fact that the wisdom of the world has not even surpassed the basic issues of self-preservation. Even a mighty nation like the USA is vulnerable, perhaps more so than the starving children in third world countries. The issue is truly pandemic, and we can not expect all people to change for the good at the same time. Even so, humanity must start somewhere, or we are doomed to repeat the tragedies of our past without ever having a chance to advance as a race.

You have just described statists. People who seek power over the consciences of others. One who is truly self-interested and holds the sanctity of individual conscience over specific material gains is incapable of hurting another person. I seek my benefit, but only advance it when I am able to find another person who agrees that it is mutually beneficial for us to transact. As long as there is full disclosure of the implicit costs of the transaction, the world can only be improved by such actions.

 

[Moonbeam]

Nope - again some people care about the Greater Good, but some people only care about Good .... for themselves. That's the point I'm trying to make. There is a clear difference about wanting what is only "good" for yourself, as opposed to sacrificing (aka accepting the bad) aspect of one's self for the good of others or the good of the whole.

Yes, and what you describe here is good for you. This greater good is just your good re-badged. For the person who only believes in the good for him, that is the greater good. What is good for me is good for you, eh?, and exactly what you are saying.

You simply don't see that your good is the only good you CAN see.

 

[MJinZ]

Yes, and what you describe here is good for you. This greater good is just your good re-badged. For the person who only believes in the good for him, that is the greater good. What is good for me is good for you, eh?, and exactly what you are saying.

You simply don't see that your good is the only good you CAN see.

You are speaking in relatives, not absolutes.

Relatively: Of course, for someone who wants only good for himself, believes that the greater good is good for oneself. That is inherently a flawed ideal, which is basically wrong because an individual itself is worthless, as individual humans are both weak and time-limited in that, but also spiritually worthless as humans are social beings (which is just the way we are). A human child born into a bubble is only food for predators and nothing else.

Absolutely: there is a greater good - as defined in many ways but is usually diametrically opposed to the lesser good - the good for the sake of one's self only.

Relatively: some goods are greater and lesser than others.

But to ignore the Absolute truth is the ignore facts of human life - which include the make-up of an individual, the requirements of reproduction, the necessity of community and socialization.

For an alien race that can self create, needs no others in any true way and has different interests altogether, their greater or only good could absolutely be based entirely on self-interest. Not for a human.

 

[Moonbeam]

You are speaking in relatives, not absolutes.

Relatively: Of course, for someone who wants only good for himself, believes that the greater good is good for oneself. That is inherently a flawed ideal, which is basically wrong because an individual itself is worthless, as individual humans are both weak and time-limited in that, but also spiritually worthless as humans are social beings (which is just the way we are). A human child born into a bubble is only food for predators and nothing else.

Absolutely: there is a greater good - as defined in many ways but is usually diametrically opposed to the lesser good - the good for the sake of one's self only.

Relatively: some goods are greater and lesser than others.

But to ignore the Absolute truth is the ignore facts of human life - which include the make-up of an individual, the requirements of reproduction, the necessity of community and socialization.

For an alien race that can self create, needs no others in any true way and has different interests altogether, their greater or only good could absolutely be based entirely on self-interest. Not for a human.

OK, so you know the absolute truth. Now what? What are you going to do about all the other billions of people who also know the absolute truth and all different one from the other?

 

[MJinZ]

OK, so you know the absolute truth. Now what? What are you going to do about all the other billions of people who also know the absolute truth and all different one from the other?

Argue until you are blue in the face until they get it? Argument takes intelligence and an open mind, so it may not always work. You basically have to give up on some people and leave them be.

Let's just that we didn't get to where we are now if people didn't speak up on anything about tyranny, rights, slavery etc.

 

[Soltis]

The lesser good is when the person who is only concerned about what avenues he has (political or otherwise) to benefit only himself, what he likes, and what he wants. He doesn't care who he steps on, or what costs are incurred upon others (within the framework of protecting himself - thus he doesn't go around plundering and stealing because he accepts the consequences of Laws). This is not to say he is evil, but he is simply more base.

By this definition a lesser good can be a man who strives for himself, and votes for a gov that supports that, and can also be a man who relies on the work of others, and votes for a gov that supports that. The only problem is the latter is often referred to as the "greater good" when in reality how can it be a greater good to groom a man to rely on his brethren indefinitely for survival?

Also, which is more likely to give humanity progress? everyone striving or everyone relying on others? Which is more detrimental as the majority? The majority striving and a few taking more than they earn, or a majority that relies on a minority to survive?

That being said though, imo everything in moderation. Neither extreme will work out to the best possible result, but if I had to choose it would be to strive.

 

[nonlnear]

Relatively: Of course, for someone who wants only good for himself, believes that the greater good is good for oneself. That is inherently a flawed ideal, which is basically wrong because an individual itself is worthless, as individual humans are both weak and time-limited in that, but also spiritually worthless as humans are social beings (which is just the way we are). A human child born into a bubble is only food for predators and nothing else.

Thank you for your honesty. It is rare to hear a collectivist be this direct when expressing disdain for an individual's intrinsic worth.

I happen to believe that a human born into a bubble is a potentially victorious creature with immeasurable individual worth whose existence should be celebrated, if only by herself.

Absolutely: there is a greater good - as defined in many ways but is usually diametrically opposed to the lesser good - the good for the sake of one's self only.

Relatively, some goods are greater and lesser than others.

I noticed you didn't reply to the last paragraph of my last post wherein I very simply demonstrated that the honest pursuit of self-interest makes the world a better place.

But to ignore the Absolute truth is the ignore facts of human life - which include the make-up of an individual, the requirements of reproduction, the necessity of community and socialization.

These are all needs which an individual is competent to recognize and pursue barring extremely unusual circumstances. How then do you make the case that an individual honestly pursuing self interest without exerting force over others will somehow make the world a worse place - even by the benchmarks you yourself are proposing?

For an alien race that can self create, needs no others in any true way and has different interests altogether, their greater or only good could absolutely be based entirely on self-interest.

Non sequitur. What you say is true, but is totally separate from anything being claimed.

 

[Soltis]

Individuals may be worthless, but they matter. Such is the great paradox between a human and Government(although I may have worded that wrong).

 

[woolfe9999]

Exactly. (Although I would tweak populist into statist, as a populism is but one flavor of statism.) A statist has no paradoxes once (s)he acknowledges that the statist believes the individual to be worthless as an individual. With this mindset a statist can create a political philosophy that is free from contradictions. I assert that such a philosophy is evil, but the honest statists hold the individual opinion (even their own) in total contempt, so that's not really an issue for them!

I agree with your substitution of "statist" for "populist" in Cyclowizard's formulation but disagree that populism is a subset of statism. I think populism is actually the broader of the two concepts by far, and it's broad enough to be near meaningless in this context. All "populism" is, as an ideology, is promoting government that is responsive to the needs of ordinary people. This can mean a whole slew of things, right and left, libertarian and statist. Populism is, perhaps, against things like oligarchy, feudalism, or government control by monied interests. That is about as specific as you can get with populism: defining it by what it is against.

Populism is, of course, also a rhetorical style common to many politicians across the ideological spectrum, but there, it is generally inauthentic. However, I find that the concept of populism is more meaningful when discussing these rhetorical styles in our modern political discourse than it is when discussing it as a form of political ideology because it is way too amorphous to be considered a true ideology.

I also agree with you and him that statism and libertarianism are more "coherent" (meaning in this context free of internal contradictions), than the modern forms of liberalism and conservatism. However, coherence is highly overrated when it comes to the application of theory to material reality. The ultimate test of a political theory, in practice, is an empirical one. To wit - does it, in fact, produce the most good for the most people (assuming, of course, we are all on board with this utilitarian formulation as a test). I used to contemplate the logical consistency of libertarianism versus the contraditions in liberalism and conservatism, until I realized that this was mental masturbation, an exercise in theory divorced from material reality.

- wolf

 

[MJinZ]

Thank you for your honesty. It is rare to hear a collectivist be this direct when expressing disdain for an individual's intrinsic worth.

I happen to believe that a human born into a bubble is a potentially victorious creature with immeasurable individual worth whose existence should be celebrated, if only by herself.

What you are proposing is ill conceived and unrealistic. The human baby is the way it is because of the way we have evolved to be greater than the sum of our parts. A human baby born in the wild is absolutely fodder. The wilderness, the sun and moon do not care whether the baby lives or dies. The Baby has great intrinsic worth, but only in the context of the existence of a nurturing environment, which includes culture, intelligence, and community.

I noticed you didn't reply to the last paragraph of my last post wherein I very simply demonstrated that the honest pursuit of self-interest makes the world a better place.

These are all needs which an individual is competent to recognize and pursue barring extremely unusual circumstances. How then do you make the case that an individual honestly pursuing self interest without exerting force over others will somehow make the world a worse place - even by the benchmarks you yourself are proposing?

I didn't respond to it directly because honestly, that is a very difficult question and requires a lot more breakdown. Put it simply, it requires an in depth look at self-interest itself. It also conflicts with the basic axioms of life that people should or need only help others when it is beneficial for themselves. If you want, I can respond to this later, but what you claimed is a lot more complex than meets the eye.

As for your new assertion that I was making the case that "individual honestly pursuing self interest without exerting force over others will somehow make the world a worse place" is a huge stretch, you'll have to explain how I am advocating that. That is a fairly neutral position. I was only arguing against the more negative version (where people will exert force over others to pursue their own self interest).

Non sequitur. What you say is true, but is totally separate from anything being claimed.

I think it is very relevant to the fact that not all is relative. The Earth is the Earth, and survival is survival.

 

[MJinZ]

Individuals may be worthless, but they matter. Such is the great paradox between a human and Government(although I may have worded that wrong).

Government is a constructed body by a society to represent the whole, it is not at all needed or relevant to the discussion at hand. It's like a discussion between Good and Evil, and now you are bringing in Jesus.

 

[Soltis]

Government is a constructed body by a society to represent the whole, it is not at all needed or relevant to the discussion at hand. It's like a discussion between Good and Evil, and now you are bringing in Jesus.

Hmmm. It could be argued though that the sentence would still have the same meaning if I had said; Individuals may be worthless, but they matter. Such is the great paradox between a human and the "Greater Good"(although I may have worded that wrong).

 

[MJinZ]

By this definition a lesser good can be a man who strives for himself, and votes for a gov that supports that, and can also be a man who relies on the work of others, and votes for a gov that supports that. The only problem is the latter is often referred to as the "greater good" when in reality how can it be a greater good to groom a man to rely on his brethren indefinitely for survival?

Also, which is more likely to give humanity progress? everyone striving or everyone relying on others? Which is more detrimental as the majority? The majority striving and a few taking more than they earn, or a majority that relies on a minority to survive?

That being said though, imo everything in moderation. Neither extreme will work out to the best possible result, but if I had to choose it would be to strive.

Hmm, the puzzling thing is that I'm finding mention of government more and more even though I don't really see why that is necessary to the discussion.

Let me give you an example of my opinion on the matter.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have both strived hard for personal gain, and very successfully I might add. Their massive wealth and success will go largely towards the betterment of all mankind through their charitable foundations. These are people ultimately concerned with the greater good.

The lesser good doer is the XYZ guy (I can't think of a famous one exactly) who has worked hard, contributes to the charities of his choice (that somehow benefits him indirectly), but credits solely themselves for their success. In this way, they believe that others should similarly strive harder to achieve their dreams, when in reality, you can not tell a starving child with AIDs in Africa that and have it mean anything.

 

[MJinZ]

Hmmm. It could be argued though that the sentence would still have the same meaning if I had said; Individuals may be worthless, but they matter. Such is the great paradox between a human and the "Greater Good"(although I may have worded that wrong).

Well, to give you a good example why - do you think "rights" are valuable?

Well, they are not without the context of others.

When you stand alone in the desert, with the heat of the sun on your skin, with no food and water surrounded by Hyenas, does the Universe care about your "rights?". Your basic human rights? Your right to life? Free Speech? Protect yourself? Healthcare? Etc? It does not.