What Is Sin?

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Pup

Thank you. I've never understood that either. The idea of charity as an ideal, seems like it requires the giver and receiver to have different moral codes, or for the giver to simply use the receiver to achieve his goal, without considering the transaction from the receiver's point of view.

Why different moral codes? Why not different situations? If I am a healthy person possessing more than I require, I am in a different situation, whatever may be my moral code, from a sick person in a society afflicted by epidemic, famine or disaster, regardless of that person's moral code.

[Dinwar]

So you're suggesting the appropriate moral code is moral relativism?

Also, who decides what constitutes "possessing more than I require"? Require for what? Subsistance living? Living comfortably? Living in luxury? This statement presupposes an objective--what is that objective, and who decides?

And what do you do when you think I have more than I require (for some undefined purpose) and I don't want to give you what you want me to give you?

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

I once wanted a rhubarb pie. I worked for a day on a farm to earn a bag of rhubarb for payment. It was purely selfish--I didn't care if the hog crap got taken out of the pen, but that pie drove me. Was that sinful?

When I got home I asked my sister to make the pie crust. I knew how to make the filling, but couldn't make the crust. In exchange, I offered her one of the pies. We both operated out of pure selfishness. Were either of us sinful?

My mother offered some of her ingredients. She didn't do it to help us--in fact, she was rather harsh in the way she demanded we clean up after ourselves. In exchange I offered her one of the pies we made. We both acted out of our own selfish interests. Were either of us sinful?

If the answer is "Yes" to any of these, please state why. And please don't use the typical tactic of "Well, you weren't REALLY acting selfishly". I'm reporting our motives accurately--we all honestly were acting purely selfishly, and didn't give a hoot what the others did.

To me, this story conjures the mental image of Ayn Rand (as played by Marty Feldman) sticking her head in the window and yelling, "CAPITALISM!"

[Dinwar]

I didn't hear about Rand or Objectivism until three years after that particular event. My reaction to reading Atlas Shrugged wasn't "This is brilliant!" but rahter "Finally, someone gets it!"

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

So you're suggesting the appropriate moral code is moral relativism?

Also, who decides what constitutes "possessing more than I require"? Require for what? Subsistance living? Living comfortably? Living in luxury? This statement presupposes an objective--what is that objective, and who decides?

And what do you do when you think I have more than I require (for some undefined purpose) and I don't want to give you what you want me to give you?

That would imply that there's no significant difference between a person possessing more than enough to live on, and a starving child, for the possessing person may have an objective of living in even greater luxury, and nothing else counts.

Some of the things you write give a strange appearance of seeming void of all human empathy, so that you can calmly state, as you do in another post, that you are not a murderer or a sociopath because you have made a rational decision not to be such, not because you are positively repelled by the idea of engaging in murderous or sociopathic behaviour.

And your query about what might happen if you don't want to give what someone else may want from you? But that's not part of any valid calculation about whether or not it would be morally right to make the gift. (It is a valid and proper practical calculation, of course.) Seemingly, you simply have no moral or empathically emotional motivations at all, although this must be a false impression, induced by the terms in which you express ideas. I do not say this to reproach you; I merely observe it. Such an apparent removal of feeling from the domain of human interaction arouses my interest and curiosity.

I ask you out of that curiosity, and not for any reason of hostility: have you intentionally adopted this approach as a consequence of the ideology which you have embraced?

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

I didn't hear about Rand or Objectivism until three years after that particular event. My reaction to reading Atlas Shrugged wasn't "This is brilliant!" but rahter "Finally, someone gets it!"

I didn't see this until I posted my most recent one. It answers the question in my last sentence, for which thanks. The answer is: No, I embraced the ideology because it reflects my natural inclinations.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Craig B

That would imply that there's no significant difference between a person possessing more than enough to live on, and a starving child, for the possessing person may have an objective of living in even greater luxury, and nothing else counts.

Morally, there's not much else that counts. There are millions of starving children. Which ones should he help? How much is "more than enough"? To what level of poverty must he reduce himself to be moral? Is getting a choclate sundae an immoral act while there is a single starving child somewhere in the world? Where do his responsibilities for the welfare of others finally leave off, that he may enjoy his own life?

Quote:

And your query about what might happen if you don't want to give what someone else may want from you? But that's not part of any valid calculation about whether or not it would be morally right to make the gift.

Ah, see, you're mixing up concepts. Simply because he has no moral obligation to help a starving person does not mean it isn't in his own best interest to do so. Being generous with what he has carries social status benefits, both in reputation and reciprocity. The people he helps may one day be in a position to help him, either directly or by their subsequent contributions to society as a whole. He may emotionally benefit from the act of giving as well. There are all manner of selfish reasons to help others that do not rely on guilt or obligation.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Craig B

That would imply that there's no significant difference between a person possessing more than enough to live on, and a starving child, for the possessing person may have an objective of living in even greater luxury, and nothing else counts.

No. It implies that someone is choosing what constitutes "enough", and I'm curious as to who that is.

Originally Posted by Craig B

Some of the things you write give a strange appearance of seeming void of all human empathy, so that you can calmly state, as you do in another post, that you are not a murderer or a sociopath because you have made a rational decision not to be such, not because you are positively repelled by the idea of engaging in murderous or sociopathic behaviour.

I know myself well enough to know that I'm fully capable of murderous and sociopathic behavior. I don't engage in it because I choose, for various reasons, not to. These reasons range from "I don't feel like it" (which is what you'd apparently prefer my reason to be), to "it's a violation of my moral code", to "X would murder me" in a few cases.

Does the reason why I don't shoot someone make me less of a non-murderer? No. As Teller put it, peace is simply not pulling the trigger.

Quote:

Seemingly, you simply have no moral or empathically emotional motivations at all,

Oh, I'm an intensely moral person--it's why I know I'm capable of murder. I'm almost always guided by my morality. Take a glance through history to see what happens when one side thinks they have the moral high ground. I know myself enough to know that I'm not so special that I'll avoid that fate. I've even asked a few good friends to keep an eye on me, and put me down if I go too far. Always a rather...odd...conversation. You know you've earned someone's respect when they ask you to do something like that.

What I don't do is factor my emotions into the equation when evaluating what's moral vs. immoral. They don't matter.

Quote:

Such an apparent removal of feeling from the domain of human interaction arouses my interest and curiosity.

You're quite mistaken. I don't remove all feeling from human interaction; I merely ignore my emotions, as they're not tools of cognition--at least, I ignore them until I have time to introspect a bit and determine why I feel that way (emotions are a good way to test what values I ACTUALLY hold, as opposed to those I think I should hold). Basically, what disturbs you about me is that I'm driven by logic and rationality, even in discussions of areas that other people give over to emotionalism. The reason is very simple, however: in my view emotions are not tools of cognition. They don't tell us ANYTHING about the situation.

Think of it this way: I use reason and logic to determine what articles of clothing to put together in a washing machine. Ethics is the single most important field of human thought, in my opinion; why would I use a less strict code for ethics than for washing my shirts?

The reason for this is again very simple: I'm on my second moral code. I realized my first was fundamentally flawed, and had to abandon it. Thus, I'm acutely aware of the potential I have to err in this. Reason and logic are the only self-correcting methodologies I'm aware of, so that's what I utilize. Emotionalism isn't, so I don't use it.

Quote:

I ask you out of that curiosity, and not for any reason of hostility: have you intentionally adopted this approach as a consequence of the ideology which you have embraced?

You've got it bass-ackwards. I actually ignored emotions first--I've never viewed emotions as providing any real data, other than to evaluate what's happening against what I want to happen. My ideology stems, in large part, from that choice.

[Craig B]

Piscivore

Quote:

He may emotionally benefit from the act of giving as well. There are all manner of selfish reasons to help others that do not rely on guilt or obligation.

You have hit exactly upon what surprises me - his apparent lack of any emotional motive whatsoever. Where in what Dinwar has written does he display the least sign of seeking or even envisaging such emotional benefit? Nor have I invoked the concepts of guilt or obligation. But if you want to explore these issues, I will be happy to join you in doing so.

[Craig B]

Dinwar

My last crossed with yours. Yes I realise I had it backwards when I saw your 1:44 pm post, and at once acknowledged as much. It's late here, and your post invites some thought, which it will most certainly receive before I respond to it.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Craig B

The answer is: No, I embraced the ideology because it reflects my natural inclinations.

No, not at all. I had already gone through discarding one moral code and developing another. It took a long time and a huge amount of thought for me to reach the conclusions I did--to call it a "natural inclination" isnt' a fair assessment. I reached the same conclusions as Rand, which is far more than mere inclination.

Originally Posted by Piscivore

Ah, see, you're mixing up concepts. Simply because he has no moral obligation to help a starving person does not mean it isn't in his own best interest to do so.

Bingo.

The summer after my freshman year in college my home town flooded. In fact, it was 11 am my first day back home. I'd made myself a sandwich and was eating lunch when I heard about it. I finished my sandwich on the way to fill sand bags. Now, my parents' home is on a local rise. Dad's an engineer; this was not an accident. In fact, all my relatives live in relatively high houses. But it was in my own best interest to help the rest of the town. Many of these people had proven themselves to be independant, hard-working and rational people in the past, and since those are the values I hold I don't have any interest in seeing such people harmed. It also was part of the price of living in my parents' home--my family includes a number of emergency response personnel, and they expect you to help out. I was friends with some of the firemen involved, and knew that if a young buck like me didn't help out they wouldn't walk for two days; not an outcome I want to see happen. And there's pride. Humans live by taming the natural world, and frankly I'll be damned if I let some pathetic little stream like that defeat us.

Selflessness had no part in it. I did what I did for purely selfish reasons. Rational selfishness does not mean never helping anyone else; it means that I need to choose when I help, based on maximizing my rationally-chosen values.

Donations and charity are deligation of one's purchasing power or effort to the service of another. One only has so much purchasing power and effort to contribute. If you deligate them wisely, you get more; if you squander them, you run out and can't help anyone at all. It does no one any good to be so generous you become a charity case yourself. It's cold-hearted and often cruel, but it's also a simple fact.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Dinwar

My last crossed with yours. Yes I realise I had it backwards when I saw your 1:44 pm post, and at once acknowledged as much. It's late here, and your post invites some thought, which it will most certainly receive before I respond to it.

Fair enough. That's the problem with taking your time to post on this forum--by the time you say what you want to say, it's often already been said.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Piscivore

You have hit exactly upon what surprises me - his apparent lack of any emotional motive whatsoever. Where in what Dinwar has written does he display the least sign of seeking or even envisaging such emotional benefit?

Why should it bother you if he doesn't mention or consider the emotional benefits primary to his moral reckonings?

Quote:

Nor have I invoked the concepts of guilt or obligation. But if you want to explore these issues, I will be happy to join you in doing so.

Trakar implied them, in the statement you said you agreed with:
"The placing of self, concerns and desires of self, ahead of all else is probably the the best definition of "sin" I have ever encountered."

If it is immoral to consider one's "concerns and desires of self" before the "concerns and desires" of others, doesn't that create an obligation for every individual human being to first please every other human being before themselves? Try to imagine what kind of world that would actually be like. I'm sure it sounded good to a tribe of Bronze-age sheepherders who knoew maybe 150 to 200 people in their entire lifetime, but we live in a world nearing seven billion. Do you think it is moral to put your own happiness at the tail end of that kind of queue? Especially when putting a the happiness of a romatic partner to the fore can be considered an unhealthy relationship?

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

Why should it bother you if he doesn't mention or consider the emotional benefits primary to his moral reckonings?

It doesn't bother me, beyond what I have already stated; but it does flatly refute your suggestion that

Quote:

He may emotionally benefit from the act of giving as well.

which I was striving to rebut because Dinwar had never mentioned such a motive.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Craig B

It doesn't bother me, beyond what I have already stated; but it does flatly refute your suggestion that which I was striving to rebut because Dinwar had never mentioned such a motive.

It refutes nothing; I said "may". It is one benefit among many possible. And his subsequent post does illuminate some emotional motivations, but perhaps they're not the ones you expected or wished him to have.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

It refutes nothing; I said "may". It is one benefit among many possible. And his subsequent post does illuminate some emotional motivations, but perhaps they're not the ones you expected or wished him to have.

Are they the ones which your original "emotional benefit" hypothesis would have evoked in the mind of an average person reading your post? Moreover, The point is not that I "wish" Dinwar to have any particular state of mind; I'm simply trying to determine what it actually is, and why he has it.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Are they the ones which your original "emotional benefit" hypothesis would have evoked in the mind of an average person reading your post?

Indeterminable and completely irrelevant. An emotional benefit is an emotional benefit, no matter the emotion; be it pride, or lust, or joy, or aesthetic fulfillment, or the sappiest puppy-hugging.

Quote:

Moreover, The point is not that I "wish" Dinwar to have any particular state of mind; I'm simply trying to determine what it actually is, and why he has it.

Again, irrelevant. The point is that he does what he thinks is "good" for selfish reasons, and that's not immoral.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Why different moral codes? Why not different situations? If I am a healthy person possessing more than I require, I am in a different situation, whatever may be my moral code, from a sick person in a society afflicted by epidemic, famine or disaster, regardless of that person's moral code.

Because there's almost always someone worse off, that the person receiving the charity could donate to also.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Pup

Because there's almost always someone worse off than those receiving the charity.

Exactly. "The placing of self, concerns and desires of self, ahead of all else is probably the the best definition of "sin" I have ever encountered" means morally that a cancer patient in the hospital must give up his flush toilet because a kid in Africa doesn't have clean drinking water.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

Indeterminable and completely irrelevant. An emotional benefit is an emotional benefit, no matter the emotion; be it pride, or lust, or joy, or aesthetic fulfillment, or the sappiest puppy-hugging.

So they are not the emotional benefits that your original wording would have evoked in the mind of an average reader, as I observed. Fine. Thanks. I was covering myself against the response that you have in fact made.

Quote:

Again, irrelevant. The point is that he does what he thinks is "good" for selfish reasons, and that's not immoral.

How can it be irrelevant that I'm trying to understand Dinwar's state of mind? My point so far is that he excludes feeling and morality from his approach to these questions. He is seemingly "amoral" in this. Whether he goes beyond that, and is positively "immoral", I will discuss in my response to his 2:19 post. The question there is motivation, always a very complex issue.

I will also deal with the suggestion that a cancer patient in hospital must give up a flush toilet because a kid in Africa doesn't have clean drinking water, another grotesque absurdity which you wrongly attribute to me.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Craig B

So they are not the emotional benefits that your original wording would have evoked in the mind of an average reader, as I observed.

It is irrelevant, because I don't know (or care) what happens in the mind of an "average reader", or even if such a thing exists. How do you know what the "average reader" thinks? Do you think I am going to be surprised when it turns out that what you think the "average reader" thinks is exactly what you do? Almost everyone thinks they are "average" or "normal".

Quote:

Fine. Thanks. I was covering myself against the response that you have in fact made. How can it be irrelevant that I'm trying to understand Dinwar's state of mind? My point so far is that he excludes feeling and morality from his approach to these questions. He is seemingly "amoral" in this.

Your point is wrong, because he very specifically stated that he includes his "feelings" in his moral determinations. And as these are moral determinations, how can you possibly claim he's excluding morality? Unless you are going to assert an objective morality he's somehow disregarding, in which case I'd invite you to explicitly state what it is and what is its source.

Quote:

Whether he goes beyond that, and is positively "immoral", I will discuss in my response to his 2:19 post. The question there is motivation, always a very complex issue.

Why is "motivation" an issue at all? How do you determine what someone's motivation is?

Which is morally "better", someone who pays the college expenses of a young lady because she sleeps with him, a woman who eventually becomes a successful researcher who dramatically improves society in some way, or the man who refuses to engage in such a relationship and condemns the woman to waitressing barely above the poverty level her entire life?

Quote:

I will also deal with the suggestion that a cancer patient in hospital must give up a flush toilet because a kid in Africa doesn't have clean drinking water, another grotesque absurdity which you wrongly attribute to me.

I did not attribute it to you, I postulated it is a logical consequence of Trakar's definition of "sin".

[Dinwar]

It's interesting to listen to people speculate on my emotional life. There's only one person who'd understood that side of me, and I married her.

What I'm curious about is why emotions matter. It doesn't matter what I feel about math--2+2=4. It doesn't matter what my emotional motivation is, if you want to find fossils you go to outcrops. The Earth revolves around the Sun no matter my tears or tantrums. Why do my emotions matter with ethics?

Originally Posted by Craig B

Moreover, The point is not that I "wish" Dinwar to have any particular state of mind; I'm simply trying to determine what it actually is, and why he has it.

That's simple: I have the state of mind I do for precisely the reasons I gave you. I'll grant you that getting there was one hell of a journey, but that's just details--if you go to Vienna and I ask where you are it's irrelevant whether you got there by sea or air.

Quote:

My point so far is that he excludes feeling and morality from his approach to these questions. He is seemingly "amoral" in this.

I don't see it that way. Again, I see myself as intensely moral--in fact, dangerously so. I'm going to do what I think is right, and if you ask me I will tell you precisely WHY I think it's right. It confuses me a great deal why people insist that emotions are the foundation of morality. Again, we don't do this for ANY other field of thought. Our emotions are irrelevant to engineering, to accounting, to physics, to chemistry, to geology, to gastronomy, to metalworking, to mining, to automotive mechanics, to astronomy, to cosmology, to medicine, etc. ad infinitum. The exception is morality--as soon as you give reasons and arguments for why something is moral, people say that you're not moral. It's weird.

As far as emotional benefits go, I don't view those as primaries. They're consequences. What I'm actually doing is gaining values. I value the guy who sells me wire--I like making maille, and I really, REALLY don't like making my own wire (for the very valid reason that I can't--I lack the equipment necessary). Thus it makes perfect sense for me to help him out if he needs it.

When I was in college I knew a guy who was boarderline sociopathic. One day he asked me why I always held the door for people. A good-looking woman walked up at that point and I held the door for her. Then I pointed out that 1) she thought I was a gentleman, which is never a bad reputation for a hetersoexual male to have, and 2) I got a pretty good view of her as she walked away. The guy almost immediately started holding the door for his girlfriend. That man's self-interest--which normally took the form of JUST staying this side of the law--suddenly led him to become much more of a gentleman. Your focus on emotions suggests that that's somehow a bad thing. To me, the guy wasn't being a jerk and I didn't have to worry quite so much around him, which were very, very good things.

Quote:

The question there is motivation, always a very complex issue.

My motivation is very straightforward. I have two primary objectives in my life (being a paleontologist, and being a husband), and will not violate the rights of anyone who doesn't violate those of me and mine. Those principles are the foundations of my actions--the latter define my social interactions, while the former define my private ones. There's some complexity in the practical application, but the principles are fairly simple.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Well, I thought you understood, but I now don't think you do.

I refuse to share their suffering. I didn't cause it. They're causing it. They've no right to make me suffer for their mistakes; mistakes I did not make.

You do not feel pain when those you love and care for are suffering,...regardless of whether they have done it to themselves or "deserve" it?

Quote:

You don't seem to understand the concept of enabling.

Enabling is giving in to their desires regardless of the consequences, I have not and do not advocated that approach.

Quote:

Suffering with them keeps them from getting better, from recovering, from becoming healthy again.

How does feeling pain because those you love and care about are suffering keep them from getting better, from recovering and from becoming healthy again? I am not saying to assist them in their addiction, I am saying that it seems peculiar that you can love and care about people and not hurt when they are suffering.

Quote:

They don't have anything to fight for when I "share" their suffering. I simply feed their addictions when I do that.

How do your inner feelings "feed thier addiction?" Are you proposing some psychic bond that allows addicted people feed off of your emotions?

Quote:

"I am not giving you what you want because I am tired of you taking advantage of my help and assistance," is EXACTLY what I MUST say to them.
I won't make myself a willing victim of their illness.

We are talking about motivations for actions. In both cases we are talking about denying them that which they desire. The only difference is in why we are doing so. Doing so because we love them, care about thier future and are doing what we must to help them learn to recognize and appropriately deal with their addictive behavior is non-selfish. Doing so because we don't want to deal with them and have better things to do with our time and money, is selfish.

Quote:

That's what I meant by "loving them into an early grave of their own making."

I don't think you have understood what I have said.

Quote:

I do love them. And that's why I allow them to suffer for their own mistakes. If they know I'm going to tolerate their drinking and drugging and keep them from the consequences, they have no reason to get better or seek help. I love them far too much to enable them to drink themselves to death.

Who said anything about tolerating the behavior, or keeping them from the consequences of their behavior? I did not!

Quote:

NO ONE ELSE should ever suffer for your mistakes.

If someone I love or care about is hurting, regardless of why, I feel pain as well.

Quote:

Sometimes, there's no way to avoid it. But I'm certainly not going to walk up to my own sons and ASK them for a heaping plate of pain.

Somewhere, along the way here you seem to have misunderstood what I have been talking about. I have not suggested what you seem to be taking away from my words.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

I once wanted a rhubarb pie. I worked for a day on a farm to earn a bag of rhubarb for payment. It was purely selfish--I didn't care if the hog crap got taken out of the pen, but that pie drove me. Was that sinful?

When I got home I asked my sister to make the pie crust. I knew how to make the filling, but couldn't make the crust. In exchange, I offered her one of the pies. We both operated out of pure selfishness. Were either of us sinful?

My mother offered some of her ingredients. She didn't do it to help us--in fact, she was rather harsh in the way she demanded we clean up after ourselves. In exchange I offered her one of the pies we made. We both acted out of our own selfish interests. Were either of us sinful?

If the answer is "Yes" to any of these, please state why. And please don't use the typical tactic of "Well, you weren't REALLY acting selfishly". I'm reporting our motives accurately--we all honestly were acting purely selfishly, and didn't give a hoot what the others did.

There is an argument to make that you weren't placing your interests ahead of others,...but you were thinking primarily about your own desires instead of concerns about others. Yes, your actions, due to their motivation, were sinful. Was it a terrible or especially egregious sin, of course not. Merely one of the typical, daily, garden variety venial offenses of placing ourselves and our personal interests and preferences ahead of other activities we could be doing to benefit and help others.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Somehow I doubt Trakar would be an Objectivist like me.

Only because I consider Rand a pseudophilosophical solipsist with more ego than rationality, but that is neither here nor there with respect to the subject of this thread.

Quote:

Trakar, in contrast, advocates selflessness--which is the opposite of my moral code.

I do not advocate selflessness, I simply do not think that we should place ourselves and our desires ahead of all other concerns and issues.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Making what a thoughtcrime?

Well, just about any kind of "sin" based on what you think is irrational. But in this case the general topic was that whole idea that self-interest is a "sin". It's a thought crime because ultimately it depends only on what you think, as opposed to actual good or harm done.

[Craig B]

We are in danger of going over old ground which has been exhaustively explored at
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...highlight=rand
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...highlight=Rand
In the last of these threads I contribute a denunciation of Rand's grotesque racist imperialism, a sin which she adds to her murderous greed and shameless hypocrisy. I stand by my remarks.

Dinwar also made useful and interesting contributions to that thread, which it would be superfluous to discuss further. However, I will look at his recent posts here, which contain new ideas.

Quote:

What I'm curious about is why emotions matter. It doesn't matter what I feel about math--2+2=4. It doesn't matter what my emotional motivation is, if you want to find fossils you go to outcrops. The Earth revolves around the Sun no matter my tears or tantrums. Why do my emotions matter with ethics?

It doesn't matter what I feel about the rotation of the earth, so I feel nothing. It doesn't matter what I feel about the suffering of others, so ... Emotions, then, are felt only when they "matter". If they don't "matter", they don't get felt. (Unlike the woman student in Piscivore's bizarre morality tale, who does.) In my bafflement at this, I will quote Trakar's appeal to Slingblade

Quote:

You do not feel pain when those you love and care for are suffering,...regardless of whether they have done it to themselves or "deserve" it?

Another example of this utilitarian attitude towards feelings is here:

Quote:

I'm a selfish person. If I help you, it's because I'm getting something out of it. That said, a remarkable number of people come to me for help, and I'm more than willing to help them. See, *I'M* getting something out of it if you succeed--thus, it's in my own best interest to help you in any way I can. It's nothing to do with empathy, or compassion, or anything that a Christian would relate to as a virtue; it's pure, cold arithmetic.

Not only Christians, I am sure, find this lacking in virtue. I, an atheist, am repelled by the idea that I should offer help only where I calculate that an arithmetically countable benefit will accrue to me in return.

Another one

Quote:

Does the reason why I don't shoot someone make me less of a non-murderer? No. As Teller put it, peace is simply not pulling the trigger.

If you abstain from murder only from fear of punishment you are an immoral non-murderer; if you are repelled by the idea of murder, you may be a moral non-murderer. Which is what we are discussing.

Ah, Teller! What a moral guide. His definition of peace is wrong. Or outmoded: the Pax Romana and Pax Britannica were like that:

Quote:

Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.

(Hilaire Belloc, The Modern Traveller) So "they" don't rebel, and we have "peace".

Finally, I must address Piscivore.

Quote:

Which is morally "better", someone who pays the college expenses of a young lady because she sleeps with him, a woman who eventually becomes a successful researcher who dramatically improves society in some way, or the man who refuses to engage in such a relationship and condemns the woman to waitressing barely above the poverty level her entire life?

Dear me! One way around that would be means-tested publicly-funded grants for higher education (such as enabled me to attend Glasgow University in the 1960s), but if you think whoring's a better solution because you follow Ayn Rand in decrying tax funded social enterprises, even education to "dramatically improve society", then I will probably be unable to change your mind. However, I fail to see any moral value in prostitution, although if consensual I don't think it should be forbidden by law. Buying sexual services, even if the seller makes good use of the money, is not a moral undertaking, any more than buying shoes is a morally significant act. It may even be a positively immoral one. So if I abstain from employing prostitutes, I will not consider myself to be immoral on that account.

[Pup]

In general, I'm sympathetic to what Dinwar has been saying. It seems more honest than claiming that one tries to be a moral person regardless of self-interest. That's impossible, because the smug feeling of being a moral person in itself gives an ego boost and therefore is done in self interest.

People don't like admitting that, because then they would be like Dinwar and (in their world view) that little smug ego boost would go away. It still all comes back to self-interest.

Originally Posted by Trakar

I am not saying to assist them in their addiction, I am saying that it seems peculiar that you can love and care about people and not hurt when they are suffering.

You're starting with the assumption that "love and care" are fixed and unchangeable. Factor that out, and it makes sense. I learned the lesson early on.

Society says that everyone is supposed to "love and care" for their family. If that's fixed and unchangeable, then I should have hurt anytime that my abusive father was taken away from our home (for unfortunately way-too-brief periods), because he was hurting due to being taken away.

Bullcrap. I was overjoyed.

It taught me very young that one doesn't need to continue to love and care for someone who mistreats them, regardless of how one felt in the past or how society says they should feel. I dunno, but I think that realization is also what has kept me from going through a string of abusive relationships in later life, the way some abused children do.

For contrast, I've been happily married to my one and only wife for over 20 years, so I do know what loving and caring about someone means. Apparently, we both feel that we've gotten the better part of the deal, so I'm not sure how self-interest works in that case from an objective view, since we can't both have married the better person, but subjectively, it works.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Another one If you abstain from murder only from fear of punishment you are an immoral non-murderer; if you are repelled by the idea of murder, you may be a moral non-murderer. Which is what we are discussing.

I don't see how those are different. In both cases, the person is abstaining from murder only to avoid negative consequences. The person considers the punishment and decides it's not worth living the rest of their life in prison, or living the rest of their life feeling guilt, or living the rest of their life in fear of retribution, but it's still a calculation of whether the crime is worth the punishment.

[Craig B]

Pup

Quote:

Society says that everyone is supposed to "love and care" for their family. If that's fixed and unchangeable, then I should have hurt anytime that my abusive father was taken away from our home (for unfortunately way-too-brief periods), because he was hurting due to being taken away.

Thats not what is being argued here, that you must love people because they're part of your family. Trakar is saying that if you do claim to love and care for people, and these people are suffering, then it seems peculiar that you should not be hurt yourself. And this is what baffles me. I am not baffled by a person wishing to be rid of an abusive father. That's a completely different case.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Pup

I don't see how those are different. In both cases, the person is abstaining from murder only to avoid negative consequences. The person considers the punishment and decides it's not worth living the rest of their life in prison, or living the rest of their life feeling guilt, or living the rest of their life in fear of retribution, but it's still a calculation of whether the crime is worth the punishment.

Then there is no moral distinction between a psychopath who is indifferent to the suffering of others, and abstains from inflicting it only because of fear of punishment, and a person who has a conscience, and would suffer internally-generated feelings of guilt and remorse if they happened to inflict pain on other people. Both, to be sure, experience "negative consequences", but anyone who thinks that these two situations are for that reason morally equivalent, has, it seems to me, an unsophisticated approach to moral issues. People of conscience do not "calculate" whether committing a particlar level of rape, robbery and murder would be worth the "punishment" of remorse and regret which they would subsequently undergo. What a bizarre idea!

Consider this: judges and juries tend to abate the punishment of guilty people, if they believe that these people have shown remorse, and parole boards are very alert to this issue when considering whether a prisoner should be released. To you, however, this is a non-issue. One negative consequence - Old Sparky; the remorse experienced by a person of conscience - is the same in principle as another, differing only perhaps in degree of severity. (The latter is more painful than the former, I am inclined to think.)

It may be difficult for us to find enough common ground upon which we can even start a discussion.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by Craig B

People of conscience do not "calculate" whether committing a particlar level of rape, robbery and murder would be worth the "punishment" of remorse and regret which they would subsequently undergo. What a bizarre idea!

Of course they do. They may not do it consciously and openly, but it's a significant part of the motivation. Let's say a person

1) doesn't feel any guilt or disgust at committing murder

2) doesn't feel any fear of retribution

3) doesn't mind setting an example of a more violent society, and

4) believes they'll never be caught and feel the disapproval of either human authorities or a god.

What else would be holding them back?

One might say, "Because they just know it's wrong." But how do they know that?

If it's because it makes them feel guilty--see #1.

If it's because of game theory and their belief that a violent society is less beneficial for everyone--then see #2 and #3.

If it's because they believe an all-knowing god hands down morality, then see #4.

You're stopping at conscience, but not taking it back a step to question how conscience works.

Quote:

Consider this: judges and juries tend to abate the punishment of guilty people, if they believe that these people have shown remorse, and parole boards are very alert to this issue when considering whether a prisoner should be released. To you, however, this is a non-issue.

Gee, thanks for telling me what I think. If you do that again, would you mind at least getting it right?

Assessing remorse is crucial to the amount of punishment a society needs to inflict.

If a person shows what appears to be genuine remorse, it means they miscalculated the amount of suffering their action would cause themselves. Therefore, they're less apt to make the same mistake, because the next time they feel the urge, they'll realize how much painful guilt and regret they'll feel. So letting them out on parole makes sense, if the goal is to reduce the negative things happening in society.

If a person shows what appears to be false remorse ("I'm not sorry I did it, but I'm sorry I got caught"), it means they're merely trying to avoid the punishment that society wants to inflict on them, and that's not a good reason to let them out on parole. It would teach them that the negative consequences weren't as bad as they expected and they'll be more likely to do it again. ("I thought I was going to get 10 years in jail, but I only got 2 years plus parole--yay! burglary's not so bad.")

Quote:

It may be difficult for us to find enough common ground upon which we can even start a discussion.

Maybe so. Doesn't really matter to me. It's not like you're the only person on the internet I can ever discuss anything with.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Well, just about any kind of "sin" based on what you think is irrational. But in this case the general topic was that whole idea that self-interest is a "sin". It's a thought crime because ultimately it depends only on what you think, as opposed to actual good or harm done.

Ultimately, this goes back to the roots of definition that are the basis of this thread. "Sin" is only of relevence when examining the consequences associated with the determined act, which in itself is another entirely different discussion. The definition of "sin" needs to be tied to those consequences or it is largely meaningless. There are several potential routes to take in this exploration, but if we keep the focus upon the individual we can look at how and why "sins" (according to the "self interest" above all other concerns definition) can be detrimental to the individual and society in general, all without venturing beyond the the limits of physical nature or reasoned rationality.

Motivations and actions repeated become behavioral patterns. Such patterns tend to feed back into themselves reinforcing and amplifying their effect on individuals and those impacted by those individuals.

Little sins, in and of themselves, are of little consequence to the individual or society in general, however, the more a person allows themselves to grow used to committing little sins, the less they are prone to even consider their actions, much less think about how such actions are inconsiderate of others. Little sins desensitize us to the disregard for those we care about, and ultimately to the rest of the population in general. By focussing on and contemplating our daily sins, we stay mindful of the effects our actions have on others. By acknowledging the harm we do, and being repentant in accord with those harms, we benchmark our internal moral compass and tend to include cosiderations of how our actions impact others. This consideration helps to keep us from developing the callouses of disregard that allow our minor transgressions to cumulatively and detrimentally impact our lives and society in general.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Trakar

You do not feel pain when those you love and care for are suffering,...regardless of whether they have done it to themselves or "deserve" it?

Sure, it hurts to have to do this. But that's not "sharing their suffering." It's entirely the opposite.

It would hurt a lot more if I enabled my son into a casket, don't you think?

Now, I don't care to discuss this any more with you. This is my life, not yours, and if you have a problem with that, why don't you just go pray about it, hmmmm?

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Sure, it hurts to have to do this. But that's not "sharing their suffering." It's entirely the opposite.

It would hurt a lot more if I enabled my son into a casket, don't you think?

Now, I don't care to discuss this any more with you. This is my life, not yours, and if you have a problem with that, why don't you just go pray about it, hmmmm?

Slingblade, your explanation of your motives has force, and I can sympathise with it, and you don't need to discuss it, if you don't want to, and it is your life, it truly is. So nothing further requires to be said about somebody else's problems and prayers.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Pup

...You're starting with the assumption that "love and care" are fixed and unchangeable. Factor that out, and it makes sense. I learned the lesson early on.

Society says that everyone is supposed to "love and care" for their family. If that's fixed and unchangeable, then I should have hurt anytime that my abusive father was taken away from our home (for unfortunately way-too-brief periods), because he was hurting due to being taken away.

Bullcrap. I was overjoyed.

I feel sorrow both for the experiences, pain, and confusion that molded your father into the abusive individual he apparently was, and for the impacts your experiences had upon you and your perceptions. I am happy that you made choices which apparently led you away from the cycle of abuse that is so often the result of such situations. Society may have occassionally physically removed your father from your home, but he removed himself from his proper place as a father long before those instances. It is good that you found someone who could help you find some positive aspects of Love and Concern for others.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Trakar

I do not advocate selflessness, I simply do not think that we should place ourselves and our desires ahead of all other concerns and issues.

Would you say Hank Rearden put himself and his desires ahead of all other conserns and issues? I'm asking honestly--I want to understand what you actually mean by this statement, since it's rather vague and we're coming at it from very different angles.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Sure, it hurts to have to do this. But that's not "sharing their suffering." It's entirely the opposite...

To my considerations, feeling sorrow and regret that one you love and care about is in pain (and to be clear here, your refusal to enable their addictive behavior is not the source of their pain, the source of their pain springs from their own stinking thinking) is exactly what I meant by sharing their suffering.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Would you say Hank Rearden put himself and his desires ahead of all other conserns and issues? I'm asking honestly--I want to understand what you actually mean by this statement, since it's rather vague and we're coming at it from very different angles.

Perhaps I would join a thread discussing Rand's fictitous caricaturizations, but I don't see much sense in devoting more thought into analyzing the motivations of such cartoonish cardboard cut-outs than the author (and I use the term lightly) apparently did when she constructed the farce that is "Atlas Shrugged."

If you can find a more realistic and reasoned setting in which to frame your query, I would be happy to do what I can to openly and honestly address any issues you raise with my considerations.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Trakar

Perhaps I would join a thread discussing Rand's fictitous caricaturizations, but I don't see much sense in devoting more thought into analyzing the motivations of such cartoonish cardboard cut-outs than the author (and I use the term lightly) apparently did when she constructed the farce that is "Atlas Shrugged."

If you can find a more realistic and reasoned setting in which to frame your query, I would be happy to do what I can to openly and honestly address any issues you raise with my considerations.

No, that pretty much says everything I need to know. Your refusal to even consider the question, and your utilization of the question as an excuse to lash out at the author as if it were somehow relevent to the rather obvious point of the question, show that this isn't a line of communication that is going to be productive between the two of us.