RoR: Forum

It seems to me that it is irrational (against the facts of reality as a whole) to take advantage of others, or to use them as mere means to one's own ends. However, it also seems to me that it is sometimes within one's best interest to do so, even though it's always irrational. Is it really true that in certain situations one must chose between either the truth as a whole and what would serve one's best interest? (For example, if my survival in a certain scenario demanded that I take advantage of a good person... evading that he was good, and that it was therefore irrational to act against him.) It seems to me that it might be possible to HAVE TO choose between the two in certain scenarions, even though both options would be equally valid/invalid.

Post 1

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 6:39pm

Why do people insist on tangling their brains like this?

Christopher,

Give us your best example. Go ahead, make it as crazy as you'd like. In fact, Glen gave a good (funny) one in another thread.

Why should your survival be in anyone's interest? If you force them to make it their interest, you've got a moral problem. It's just not okay to force other people to serve you.

If you screw up the survival of others, you forfeit your own survival.

Post 2

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 6:51pm

Christopher, you forgot to (or didn't know that you could) put a title in for this thread.

=========
It seems to me that it is irrational (against the facts of reality as a whole) to take advantage of others, or to use them as mere means to one's own ends.
=========

Right, irrational because nobody truly flourishes in a dog-eat-dog world (though many folks mistakenly think that some do).

=========
However, it also seems to me that it is sometimes within one's best interest to do so, even though it's always irrational.
=========

You seem to be saying that it's sometimes irrational to aim at your best interests. This seems to be a limited understanding of "best interest." Maybe you could provide a concrete example so that we both could walk through it -- aiming for a mutual understanding?

=========
Is it really true that in certain situations one must chose between either the truth as a whole and what would serve one's best interest?
=========

No.

=========
(For example, if my survival in a certain scenario demanded that I take advantage of a good person...
=========

But your "flourishing" demands that you make appropriate eye-for-an-eye retribution.

=========
It seems to me that it might be possible to HAVE TO choose between the two in certain scenarions, even though both options would be equally valid/invalid.
=========

There's no such thing as "equal validity" regarding basic moral issues. One side's right, and the other ... wrong. Again, a concrete scenario might really help here.

Ed

Post 3

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 6:53pm

Christopher,

Did it ever occur to you that if an action is in your interest, then it's not irrational? So, if it really is necessary to sacrifice another person to save your own life, then the sacrifice is not irrational.

- Bill

Post 4

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 10:14pm

> Did it ever occur to you that if an action is in your interest, then it's not irrational?
> So, if it really is necessary to sacrifice another person to save your own life, then the sacrifice is not irrational.

Yes, and we see here where that thinking leads!

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 5

Thursday, May 22, 2008 - 3:43am

Bill is being pragmatic, Jeff, and you're right to point it out. I don't think that Bill accepts pragmatism as a viable method to live! He's just being the devil for the sake of argument.

Post 6

Thursday, May 22, 2008 - 9:52am

you hope....

Thursday, May 22, 2008 - 6:33pm