Roots of Human Morality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
921

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Does it matter to you that most of what you’ve mentioned exist, in a slightly different way, with our approval?

Seven million inmates in the US make a lot of stuff for very little money. Stealing food so you won’t starve. Rape, well, I can’t think of anything that meets our approval, but you get my drift.

Altough we agree on the extremes on this equasion, the rest of the morality issue is often a matter of semantics and context.

In other words, there’s often a fine line between what is considered immoral and what is acceptable.

[/quote]

Which is why I was very specific about the kind of theft. Rape is a slam dunk as there is never a case where somebody would have to do it.
I didn’t say the context of the situation didn’t matter. Of course it matters. The core issue of the ‘evil act’ is the intent. If you are stealing for personal gain, pleasure or for another selfish reason, then the act is evil. If you are stealing for survival of yourself or others it is not an evil act. If you kill to protect yourself or others, then it’s not an evil act. If you are killing inflict pain, get revenge, or any other selfish reason, then it’s an evil act…[/quote]

I can certainly see the thin line and why it’s there, but I simply fail to attribute it to anything other than common sense. That we don’t always act with common sense is another topic alltogether.[/quote]

Common sense isn’t always common.

You can pretty much boil down evil to one word. Selfishness.
Now that doesn’t mean every selfish act is evil, but every evil act has selfishness at it’s core. If you are willfully doing an action, that causes another conscious being harm, and doing it for yourself then that action is evil.
That’s the higher metaphysical layer to morality itself. An ultimately evil act is ultimately selfish, and ultimately good act is ultimately selfless. But selfless acts aren’t always good and selfish acts aren’t always evil. Another conscious being has to be effected one way or another to make it so.

922

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Seven million inmates in the US make a lot of stuff for very little money.
[/quote]

Though I am the least of the fans of the US penal system, can you explain how this is the same thing as theft?[/quote]

Slavery in disguise.[/quote]

Eh, that’s debatable. They are, after all, ‘paying their debt’ to society. Then of course you have the issue of free room and board, free sex (though often unwillingly), free food, etc. Then you have the issue of the crime they committed, some of which are horrific. So, this issue isn’t really cut and dry.

923

[quote]pat wrote:<<< Eh, that’s debatable. They are, after all, ‘paying their debt’ to society >>>[/quote]In most cases their debt is not to “society”.

924

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Seven million inmates in the US make a lot of stuff for very little money.
[/quote]

Though I am the least of the fans of the US penal system, can you explain how this is the same thing as theft?[/quote]

Slavery in disguise.[/quote]

And is slavery inherently wrong?[/quote]

Inherently wrong? No.

Throughout history there have been forms of slavery that weren’t, in my view, inherently wrong.

Soldiers who were defeated and surrendered were enslaved for a period of time, for instance: Slavery in the Aztec Empire - Wikipedia

Makes for interesting reading: Slavery - Wikipedia

925

[quote]pat wrote:

Common sense isn’t always common.

You can pretty much boil down evil to one word. Selfishness.
Now that doesn’t mean every selfish act is evil, but every evil act has selfishness at it’s core. If you are willfully doing an action, that causes another conscious being harm, and doing it for yourself then that action is evil.
That’s the higher metaphysical layer to morality itself. An ultimately evil act is ultimately selfish, and ultimately good act is ultimately selfless. But selfless acts aren’t always good and selfish acts aren’t always evil. Another conscious being has to be effected one way or another to make it so.
[/quote]

Yes, alas common sense isn’t all too common.

You won’t be surprised to hear that I don’t think such a thing as a complete selfless act exists. If it does exist it’s rare.

We do what we do for selfish reasons, without exception.

The psychological reasons for why we do things are divers, but they’re always there.

926

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Seven million inmates in the US make a lot of stuff for very little money.
[/quote]

Though I am the least of the fans of the US penal system, can you explain how this is the same thing as theft?[/quote]

Slavery in disguise.[/quote]

Eh, that’s debatable. They are, after all, ‘paying their debt’ to society. Then of course you have the issue of free room and board, free sex (though often unwillingly), free food, etc. Then you have the issue of the crime they committed, some of which are horrific. So, this issue isn’t really cut and dry.[/quote]

It makes for a fun debate if we incorporate for-profit correctional facilities, 3-strikes laws and misdemeanor possession charges into the question of morality.

927

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Common sense isn’t always common.

You can pretty much boil down evil to one word. Selfishness.
Now that doesn’t mean every selfish act is evil, but every evil act has selfishness at it’s core. If you are willfully doing an action, that causes another conscious being harm, and doing it for yourself then that action is evil.
That’s the higher metaphysical layer to morality itself. An ultimately evil act is ultimately selfish, and ultimately good act is ultimately selfless. But selfless acts aren’t always good and selfish acts aren’t always evil. Another conscious being has to be effected one way or another to make it so.
[/quote]

Yes, alas common sense isn’t all too common.

You won’t be surprised to hear that I don’t think such a thing as a complete selfless act exists. If it does exist it’s rare.

We do what we do for selfish reasons, without exception.

The psychological reasons for why we do things are divers, but they’re always there.[/quote]

I like what Pat had to say.

Philosophers who are worth their stock don’t put much value in common sense. Common sense leaves everything as it is, philosopher might affirm it but mostly they are challenging it and being critical about it.

You really think whatever we do its always for selfish reasons, are you just confusing the notion that a self acts? When a guy in new york jumped down onto the tracks of the subway system he was acting selfishly? If that what you mean then you have a strange way of using the word selfish.

Human beings act for a variety of reasons and non rational means. Why would a guy who earns under 30,000 a year vote for Romney or for a flat tax? Seems to me he is acting against his own best interests.

928

[quote]Ephrem said: I agree {that child rape is wrong}. What else do you find absolutely morally wrong?[/quote] [quote]I responded with: The only thing you’ve established Ephrem is that you have a penchant for bizarre digital art. It’s always entertaining to watch these godless heathens wail “BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!” in derisive scorn against people they so arrogantly deem not so progressive, enlightened and emotionally invulnerable as themselves. Then when pushed for an example of something they are willing to call “wrong” they give us what in the end amounts to “BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!”.[/quote][quote]ephrem responded: I thought it would’ve been obvious that I meant, “established within this thread”.[/quote]So outside of this thread child rape isn’t wrong?

929

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Common sense isn’t always common.

You can pretty much boil down evil to one word. Selfishness.
Now that doesn’t mean every selfish act is evil, but every evil act has selfishness at it’s core. If you are willfully doing an action, that causes another conscious being harm, and doing it for yourself then that action is evil.
That’s the higher metaphysical layer to morality itself. An ultimately evil act is ultimately selfish, and ultimately good act is ultimately selfless. But selfless acts aren’t always good and selfish acts aren’t always evil. Another conscious being has to be effected one way or another to make it so.
[/quote]

Yes, alas common sense isn’t all too common.

You won’t be surprised to hear that I don’t think such a thing as a complete selfless act exists. If it does exist it’s rare.
[/quote]
No, I don’t think pure altruism is possible, but it’s something you shoot for, not attain. Like perfection. Viola, the metaphysics of morality. It’s like kamui said, there are no ‘good’ acts, only less evil ones.

[quote]
We do what we do for selfish reasons, without exception.

The psychological reasons for why we do things are divers, but they’re always there.[/quote]

Our physicality is a limiting factor in being purely good or purely evil.

930

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Ephrem said: I agree {that child rape is wrong}. What else do you find absolutely morally wrong?[/quote] [quote]I responded with: The only thing you’ve established Ephrem is that you have a penchant for bizarre digital art. It’s always entertaining to watch these godless heathens wail “BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!” in derisive scorn against people they so arrogantly deem not so progressive, enlightened and emotionally invulnerable as themselves. Then when pushed for an example of something they are willing to call “wrong” they give us what in the end amounts to “BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!”.[/quote][quote]ephrem responded: I thought it would’ve been obvious that I meant, “established within this thread”.[/quote]So outside of this thread child rape isn’t wrong?
[/quote]
I feel that Tribulus has seen this great site with some of his comments and many of you are working unarmed as it were.

This one I see all the time on this site…I even do it ;).

If the conversation turns upon some general conception which has no particular name, but requires some figurative or metaphorical designation, you must begin by choosing a metaphor that is favourable to your proposition. For instance, the names used to denote the two political parties in Spain, Serviles and Liberales, are obviously chosen by the latter. The name Protestants is chosen by themselves, and also the name Evangelicals; but the Catholics call them heretics. Similarly, in regard to the names of things which admit of a more exact and definite meaning: for example, if your opponent proposes an alteration, you can call it an innovation, as this is an invidious word. If you yourself make the proposal, it will be the converse. In the first case, you can call the antagonistic principle “the existing order,” in the second, “antiquated prejudice”. What an impartial man with no further purpose to serve would call “public worship” or a “system of religion,” is described by an adherent as “piety,” “godliness”; and by an opponent as “bigotry,” “superstition”. This is, at bottom, a subtle petitio principii. What is sought to be proved is, first of all, inserted in the definition, whence it is then taken by mere analysis. What one man calls “placing in safe custody,” another calls “throwing into prison”. A speaker often betrays his purpose beforehand by the names which he gives to things. One may talks of “the clergy”; another, of “the priests”.

Of all the tricks of controversy, this is the most frequent, and it is used instinctively. You hear of “religious zeal,” or “fanaticism”, a “faux pas,” a “piece of gallantry,” or “adultery”; an “equivocal,” or a “bawdy” story; “embarrassment,” or “bankruptcy”; “through influence and connection,” or by “bribery and nepotism”; “sincere gratitude,” or “good pay”.

How to be a better troll…enjoy

http://logicien.fr/rhetorique.html

931

[quote]groo wrote:<<< I feel that Tribulus has seen this great. <<<>>> http://logicien.fr/rhetorique.html [/quote]If this is an accurate redaction, I promise you I had no knowledge of that site’s existence until your post. You also have my word before my God that I have never ever even once misrepresented by design, in any way, including by the sophomoric fallacies portrayed on that site, any opponent I have engaged here.

932

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Common sense isn’t always common.

You can pretty much boil down evil to one word. Selfishness.
Now that doesn’t mean every selfish act is evil, but every evil act has selfishness at it’s core. If you are willfully doing an action, that causes another conscious being harm, and doing it for yourself then that action is evil.
That’s the higher metaphysical layer to morality itself. An ultimately evil act is ultimately selfish, and ultimately good act is ultimately selfless. But selfless acts aren’t always good and selfish acts aren’t always evil. Another conscious being has to be effected one way or another to make it so.
[/quote]

Yes, alas common sense isn’t all too common.

You won’t be surprised to hear that I don’t think such a thing as a complete selfless act exists. If it does exist it’s rare.

We do what we do for selfish reasons, without exception.

The psychological reasons for why we do things are divers, but they’re always there.[/quote]

I like what Pat had to say.

Philosophers who are worth their stock don’t put much value in common sense. Common sense leaves everything as it is, philosopher might affirm it but mostly they are challenging it and being critical about it.

You really think whatever we do its always for selfish reasons, are you just confusing the notion that a self acts? When a guy in new york jumped down onto the tracks of the subway system he was acting selfishly? If that what you mean then you have a strange way of using the word selfish.

Human beings act for a variety of reasons and non rational means. Why would a guy who earns under 30,000 a year vote for Romney or for a flat tax? Seems to me he is acting against his own best interests.[/quote]

Perhaps I am broadening the definition of “selfish” incorrectly, but as I explained earlier in the thread I believe that all our actions are governed by emotion. Even a decision that appears rational has its roots in emotion.

That means that I believe all we do is to satisfy an emotion. And here too I use the word emotion in a broad sense. We can act on an emotion we don’t even know we have [anymore] which makes decisions based on that emotion appear rational.

And to satisfy an emotion is ultimately a selfish act.

933

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Ephrem said: I agree {that child rape is wrong}. What else do you find absolutely morally wrong?[/quote] [quote]I responded with: The only thing you’ve established Ephrem is that you have a penchant for bizarre digital art. It’s always entertaining to watch these godless heathens wail “BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!” in derisive scorn against people they so arrogantly deem not so progressive, enlightened and emotionally invulnerable as themselves. Then when pushed for an example of something they are willing to call “wrong” they give us what in the end amounts to “BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!”.[/quote][quote]ephrem responded: I thought it would’ve been obvious that I meant, “established within this thread”.[/quote]So outside of this thread child rape isn’t wrong?
[/quote]

I’ll just assume you’re off your meds and ignore you for a while.

934

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Common sense isn’t always common.

You can pretty much boil down evil to one word. Selfishness.
Now that doesn’t mean every selfish act is evil, but every evil act has selfishness at it’s core. If you are willfully doing an action, that causes another conscious being harm, and doing it for yourself then that action is evil.
That’s the higher metaphysical layer to morality itself. An ultimately evil act is ultimately selfish, and ultimately good act is ultimately selfless. But selfless acts aren’t always good and selfish acts aren’t always evil. Another conscious being has to be effected one way or another to make it so.
[/quote]

Yes, alas common sense isn’t all too common.

You won’t be surprised to hear that I don’t think such a thing as a complete selfless act exists. If it does exist it’s rare.
[/quote]
No, I don’t think pure altruism is possible, but it’s something you shoot for, not attain. Like perfection. Viola, the metaphysics of morality. It’s like kamui said, there are no ‘good’ acts, only less evil ones.

Do you see no point in trying to live a moral live without an absolute authority?

935

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:<<< I feel that Tribulus has seen this great. <<<>>> http://logicien.fr/rhetorique.html [/quote]If this is an accurate redaction, I promise you I had no knowledge of that site’s existence until your post. You also have my word before my God that I have never ever even once misrepresented by design, in any way, including by the sophomoric fallacies portrayed on that site, any opponent I have engaged here.
[/quote]

Ones that are likely in every thread are the making someone else’s position broad and ones own narrow.

The metaphor one isn’t really a fallacy exactly its more a method…and a fairly effective one of framing one’s argument properly.-

Stating a false syllogism is used all the time along with finding one instance to the contrary…also the site is about winning more than being right.

and of course this I see a lot as well…

“A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person. It may be called the argumentum ad personam, to distinguish it from the argumentum ad hominem, which passes from the objective discussion of the subject pure and simple to the statements or admissions which your opponent has made in regard to it. But in becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack to his person, by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. It is an appeal from the virtues of the intellect to the virtues of the body, or to mere animalism. This is a very popular trick, because every one is able to carry it into effect; and so it is of frequent application. Now the question is, What counter-trick avails for the other party? for if he has recourse to the same rule, there will be blows, or a duel, or an action for slander.
It would be a great mistake to suppose that it is sufficient not to become personal yourself. For by showing a man quite quietly that he is wrong, and that what he says and thinks is incorrect - a process which occurs in every dialectical victory - you embitter him more than if you used some rude or insulting expression. Why is this? Because, as Hobbes observes,17 all mental pleasure consists in being able to compare oneself with others to one’s own advantage. Nothing is of greater moment to a man than the gratification of his vanity, and no wound is more painful than that which is inflicted on it. Hence such phrases as “Death before dishonour,” and so on. The gratification of vanity arises mainly by comparison of oneself with others, in every respect, but chiefly in respect of one’s intellectual powers; and so the most effective and the strongest gratification of it is to be found in controversy. Hence the embitterment of defeat, apart from any question of injustice; and hence recourse to that last weapon, that last trick, which you cannot evade by mere politeness”

936

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:<<< I feel that Tribulus has seen this great. <<<>>> http://logicien.fr/rhetorique.html [/quote]If this is an accurate redaction, I promise you I had no knowledge of that site’s existence until your post. You also have my word before my God that I have never ever even once misrepresented by design, in any way, including by the sophomoric fallacies portrayed on that site, any opponent I have engaged here.
[/quote]

Ones that are likely in every thread are the making someone else’s position broad and ones own narrow.

The metaphor one isn’t really a fallacy exactly its more a method…and a fairly effective one of framing one’s argument properly.-

Stating a false syllogism is used all the time along with finding one instance to the contrary…also the site is about winning more than being right.

and of course this I see a lot as well…

“A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person. It may be called the argumentum ad personam, to distinguish it from the argumentum ad hominem, which passes from the objective discussion of the subject pure and simple to the statements or admissions which your opponent has made in regard to it. But in becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack to his person, by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. It is an appeal from the virtues of the intellect to the virtues of the body, or to mere animalism. This is a very popular trick, because every one is able to carry it into effect; and so it is of frequent application. Now the question is, What counter-trick avails for the other party? for if he has recourse to the same rule, there will be blows, or a duel, or an action for slander.
It would be a great mistake to suppose that it is sufficient not to become personal yourself. For by showing a man quite quietly that he is wrong, and that what he says and thinks is incorrect - a process which occurs in every dialectical victory - you embitter him more than if you used some rude or insulting expression. Why is this? Because, as Hobbes observes,17 all mental pleasure consists in being able to compare oneself with others to one’s own advantage. Nothing is of greater moment to a man than the gratification of his vanity, and no wound is more painful than that which is inflicted on it. Hence such phrases as “Death before dishonour,” and so on. The gratification of vanity arises mainly by comparison of oneself with others, in every respect, but chiefly in respect of one’s intellectual powers; and so the most effective and the strongest gratification of it is to be found in controversy. Hence the embitterment of defeat, apart from any question of injustice; and hence recourse to that last weapon, that last trick, which you cannot evade by mere politeness”[/quote]

Interesting, but what’s your point?

937

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:<<< I feel that Tribulus has seen this great. <<<>>> http://logicien.fr/rhetorique.html [/quote]If this is an accurate redaction, I promise you I had no knowledge of that site’s existence until your post. You also have my word before my God that I have never ever even once misrepresented by design, in any way, including by the sophomoric fallacies portrayed on that site, any opponent I have engaged here.
[/quote]

Ones that are likely in every thread are the making someone else’s position broad and ones own narrow.

The metaphor one isn’t really a fallacy exactly its more a method…and a fairly effective one of framing one’s argument properly.-

Stating a false syllogism is used all the time along with finding one instance to the contrary…also the site is about winning more than being right.

and of course this I see a lot as well…

“A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person. It may be called the argumentum ad personam, to distinguish it from the argumentum ad hominem, which passes from the objective discussion of the subject pure and simple to the statements or admissions which your opponent has made in regard to it. But in becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack to his person, by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. It is an appeal from the virtues of the intellect to the virtues of the body, or to mere animalism. This is a very popular trick, because every one is able to carry it into effect; and so it is of frequent application. Now the question is, What counter-trick avails for the other party? for if he has recourse to the same rule, there will be blows, or a duel, or an action for slander.
It would be a great mistake to suppose that it is sufficient not to become personal yourself. For by showing a man quite quietly that he is wrong, and that what he says and thinks is incorrect - a process which occurs in every dialectical victory - you embitter him more than if you used some rude or insulting expression. Why is this? Because, as Hobbes observes,17 all mental pleasure consists in being able to compare oneself with others to one’s own advantage. Nothing is of greater moment to a man than the gratification of his vanity, and no wound is more painful than that which is inflicted on it. Hence such phrases as “Death before dishonour,” and so on. The gratification of vanity arises mainly by comparison of oneself with others, in every respect, but chiefly in respect of one’s intellectual powers; and so the most effective and the strongest gratification of it is to be found in controversy. Hence the embitterment of defeat, apart from any question of injustice; and hence recourse to that last weapon, that last trick, which you cannot evade by mere politeness”[/quote]

Interesting, but what’s your point?[/quote]

The insinuation that someone would be for child porn outside this thread is a troll of this nature.

938

[quote]groo wrote:<<< The insinuation that someone would be for child porn outside this thread is a troll of this nature. >>>[/quote]I guess I have to spell everything out. To you now too Groo? My insinuation was not that my dear friend Ephrem would ever be so consistent as to deny the evil of child rape. My insinuation was that my dear friend Ephrem was making a statement of universal moral absolutism entirely unsupported by his declared intellectual foundation, which, despite his baseless protestations to the contrary, leaves him void of absolutely ANYthing on absolutely EVERY level. This thread could not possibly be more irrelevant, hence the disingenuousness of his empty claim that he was speaking only in it’s context.

I really had to say that? While I’m at it could I trouble you for an example or two of my having engaged in the cheap fallacies that you seem to be accusing me of? It sure would be a nice break. It is incessantly alleged that I am guilty of a whole list of intellectual and moral crimes by people around here and I almost never can get so much as a stab at an example. Be a hip n groovy dood and gimme a couple. Maybe there are some after all. (seriously) I sure would wanna know.

939

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< I don’t think spanking a child is particularly moral, but sometimes it’s necessary >>>[/quote][quote]ephrem wrote:<<< to be very honest, I don’t think we do ourselves, as a species, a favour by allowing the [uselessly] weak and feeble to procreate. We can’t go as far as preventing them from having children, but we shouldn’t encourage it either. >>>[/quote]Your homework assignment for tonight Ephrem is to go to your room, get on your knees and beg forgiveness of the most high God for ever being so cosmically hypocritical as to accuse Tiribulus of insanity or arrogance. When a man has decayed to the point where the immoral is necessary and he believes that fellow humans, not as “useful” as himself should be frowned upon for pursuing their God given right to produce and nurture a family? AFTER assaulting others for denying someone’s rights in the form of a woman barbarically butchering her own child?

A man who loves death on all sides. Kill the babies and prevent the imbeciles. I, me me me, am the arbiter of right and wrong… FOR OTHERS, I don’t see as fully human and or as useful as myself. Repent Ephrem. You are a slave of sickness and death. It is however the natural conclusion of the pagan autonomous worldview of godless uncertainty you so proudly proclaim. It doesn’t have to be like this for you man. You make me sad my friend. I do so sincerely want more for you.
[/quote]

Something like this would be framing the metaphors. If you don’t see it as so what would you call it?

And you definitely turn the argument from morality to the personal in this.

The big thing is that I’m not really claiming these things as fallacies though some of them are based on fallacies. They are attempts at shaping the dialectic so you can “win” the argument. The you I am using being the ubiquitous one. Classically logic is one of only three parts of rhetoric…often the least effective in winning an argument.

You don’t really see taking his statements and saying well the logical extension of this is you either agree with me or you think child sex is ok is reframing the argument in a way that favors you?

And if someone pushes you on specific cases of human evil being predestined you fall back on scripture to try to avoid stating in any fashion that you do see these acts as manifestations of free will deserving punishment.

940

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Common sense isn’t always common.

You can pretty much boil down evil to one word. Selfishness.
Now that doesn’t mean every selfish act is evil, but every evil act has selfishness at it’s core. If you are willfully doing an action, that causes another conscious being harm, and doing it for yourself then that action is evil.
That’s the higher metaphysical layer to morality itself. An ultimately evil act is ultimately selfish, and ultimately good act is ultimately selfless. But selfless acts aren’t always good and selfish acts aren’t always evil. Another conscious being has to be effected one way or another to make it so.
[/quote]

Yes, alas common sense isn’t all too common.

You won’t be surprised to hear that I don’t think such a thing as a complete selfless act exists. If it does exist it’s rare.

We do what we do for selfish reasons, without exception.

The psychological reasons for why we do things are divers, but they’re always there.[/quote]

I like what Pat had to say.

Philosophers who are worth their stock don’t put much value in common sense. Common sense leaves everything as it is, philosopher might affirm it but mostly they are challenging it and being critical about it.

You really think whatever we do its always for selfish reasons, are you just confusing the notion that a self acts? When a guy in new york jumped down onto the tracks of the subway system he was acting selfishly? If that what you mean then you have a strange way of using the word selfish.

Human beings act for a variety of reasons and non rational means. Why would a guy who earns under 30,000 a year vote for Romney or for a flat tax? Seems to me he is acting against his own best interests.[/quote]

Perhaps I am broadening the definition of “selfish” incorrectly, but as I explained earlier in the thread I believe that all our actions are governed by emotion. Even a decision that appears rational has its roots in emotion.

That means that I believe all we do is to satisfy an emotion. And here too I use the word emotion in a broad sense. We can act on an emotion we don’t even know we have [anymore] which makes decisions based on that emotion appear rational.

And to satisfy an emotion is ultimately a selfish act.
[/quote]

ok I’ll entertain what you say. And I do think there might be something to the illusion of reasons that we give for doing things. But given your idea of emotion there is the emotion of love, now love has different meanings and are you going to reduce them all to concern with ones self? What about the love of ones parents or the love of a child or the love of an animal a pet? Usually these count as unselfish regards.

On the other hand if you want to argue that we are driven by things which we aren’t conscious of and the reasons we give are just delusions, then maybe there is something to that. Although even there i wouldn’t want to say this would be true in all cases.