"The Number"

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apocalypse . . .um . . .SOON Not enough for complete safety though.

This from a guy who's supposedly trying to talk his DW into retiring.* Right. :P

[peggy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha Because it is immoral?* You must do things for some people simply because you care about them, don't you? * Or because it simply is the right thing to do? A social contract is a good thing.*

In my marketing class, way back in the day, we were taught that to sell something you could not appeal to man's "higher instincts"--buy this because it's better for the environment.

Instead, you had to appeal to his baser instincts--buy this because you'll be better if you do.

Most people are that way--I'll take care of me and mine first, and then if there's anything left over, I'll consider taking care of (in rough order) my town, my state, my country, my world.

That said, I absolutely believe people should help each other--especially and primarily within family and friend circles/groups. *Humanity seems to be hardwired that way.

[uncledrz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Wow, really, that much?* I think if I had 2 million (today's ducats) and a paid-off house I would walk away a free man.

Hey, you gotta keep at it. Who else is going to be paying in to cover our social security?

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by peggy I Most people are that way--I'll take care of me and mine first, and then if there's anything left over, I'll consider taking care of (in rough order) my town, my state, my country, my world.

You're probably right. That is why the social contract.

[Jay_Gatsby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha Because it is immoral?* You must do things for some people simply because you care about them, don't you? * Or because it simply is the right thing to do? A social contract is a good thing.*

What does morality have to do with being self-interested? Morality is simply a matter of perspective, that is, labeling something as "right" or "wrong". Putting yourself first is ammoral, not immoral.

[greg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Greg, you should know by now that there is a naked picture of just about *everyone* somehwere out there on the internet.

Brewer: I just started looking for her on Google and realized that if I found a n-n-naked picture of her, I wouldn't want to watch Star Trek anymore. The . . . um . . . mystery would be gone. I'd probably want to do something else instead . So, I'mmm back. That's better for every one--or not.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apocalypse . . .um . . .SOON Brewer:* I just started looking for her on Google and realized that if I found a n-n-naked picture of her, I wouldn't want to watch Star Trek anymore.* The . . . um . . . mystery would be gone.* I'd probably want to do something else instead .* So, I'mmm back.* That's better for every one--or not.*

Well, in that case, here is something to keep you "busy"

http://www.oneofthelads.com/carwash.php

[greg]

IMO :: Real happiness is always found in making things/life better. If you are small minded about happiness, you'll probably make yourself happy first and then possibly forget about the rest of the world while you're busy with that. If you're larger minded, oftentimes the very best types of happiness come from making other people happier, making things better for them. It's good to think outside one's own emotions and mind as much as possible. It makes life larger, better, and more real. In fact, it's something we all attempt to convey when educating our children.

--Greg

[greg]

Brewer, , thanks.

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_Gatsby What does morality have to do with being self-interested? Morality is simply a matter of perspective, that is, labeling something as "right" or "wrong". Putting yourself first is ammoral, not immoral.

Philosophers have long discussed reconciling morality and self interest. Or perceived self interest.

Putting yourself first may be immoral (bad) or moral (good) or maybe neutral. The person putting themselves first may be amoral--without moral standards.

I would say that an attitude of "I've got mine--forget yours" is bad and may not be even in the speaker's self interest. (especially if you believe Plato )

[Jarhead*]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo! This from a guy who's supposedly trying to talk his DW into retiring.* Right. :P

"It's not easy being a man, if you never had to be one."

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apocalypse . . .um . . .SOON IMO ::* Real happiness is always found in making things/life better.* If you are small minded about happiness, you'll probably make yourself happy first and then possibly forget about the rest of the world while you're busy with that.* If you're larger minded, oftentimes the very best types of happiness come from making other people happier, making things better for them.* It's good to think outside one's own emotions and mind as much as possible.* It makes life larger, better, and more real.* In fact, it's something we all attempt to convey when educating our children. --Greg

Very astute. *Actually, an inability to do much to help others (due to lack of *time) is one f the things that motivates me to FIRE. *When I have had time to volunteer and help others, it has been more fulfilling than 95+% of the paid work I have done, despite the fact that most of the "helpful" things i have done have been a lot less intellectually stimulating than career stuff.



See, you can mix softcore porn and philosophy in the same thread. *

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Well, in that case, here is something to keep you "busy" http://www.oneofthelads.com/carwash.php

Damn Brewer, you've got me giving hickies to my monitor.

Ha

[HFWR]

I think government is the best vehicle for at least some societal altruism, mostly for logistical reasons, not to mention economy of scale. Recalling several threads from the past, many, including me, think that mooching relatives/children must eventually be expected to stand on their own two feet, as it were. I'm not sure government has been effective in the past at "cutting off" moochers of government services; i.e. our tax dollars. Once you open the gate, it's difficult to get it closed...

[audreyh1]

OK - this is a digression!

But the ostrich sticking it's head in the sand to "hide" from a predator is PURE MYTH. Ostriches are actually huge, fearsome creatures, well able to
defend itself.

Quote:

An ostrich in defense of its nest can turn into 140 kilograms (300 lbs.) of lethal fury. One slash with its steel-hard toenail, for example, will disembowel a lion.

I saw some hilarious video of two guys treed by a very pis**d off ostrich. Finally a third colleague manage to distract the ostrich with his pickup truck, and the other two were able to make a getaway while the mad ostrich chased the pickup.

LOL!

Oh yeah - when nesting they have do lay down on the sand surface and become very well camouflaged with the sand....

Audrey

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 OK - this is a digression! But the ostrich sticking it's head in the sand to "hide" from a predator is PURE MYTH.* Ostriches are actually huge, fearsome creatures, well able to defend itself. I saw some hilarious video of two guys treed by a very pis**d off ostrich.* Finally a third colleague manage to distract the ostrich with his pickup truck, and the other two were able to make a getaway while the mad ostrich chased the pickup. LOL! Oh yeah - when nesting they have do lay down on the sand surface and become very well camouflaged with the sand.... Audrey

Heck, haven't you seen "Sideways"? There is a scene where one of the characters limps back to the hotel room naked and all beat-up after being discovered cockolding another man. He tells the other main character that he had to cut across an ostrich farm and "those ****ers are mean!"

[Jay_Gatsby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha Putting yourself first may be immoral (bad) or moral (good) or maybe neutral.* The person putting themselves first may be amoral--without moral standards.

You seem to be mis-applying the term "amoral" to the individual, rather than his actions, to evoke a negative perception toward the individual engaging in amoral conduct.* A person who puts himself first in certain aspects of his life*is not necessarily amoral (without moral standards), but the act of putting himself first is amoral.* Such act is neither "good" nor "evil", it just simply is.

Quote:

I would say that an attitude of "I've got mine--forget yours" is bad and may not be even in the speaker's self interest. (especially if you believe Plato* )

Plato believed that morality must be based on objective truth and must be reconciled with self-interest: that is, morality must be shown to be in the interest of the individual.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha Philosophers have long discussed reconciling morality and self interest.* Or perceived self interest.* Putting yourself first may be immoral (bad) or moral (good) or maybe neutral.* The person putting themselves first may be amoral--without moral standards.* I would say that an attitude of "I've got mine--forget yours" is bad and may not be even in the speaker's self interest. (especially if you believe Plato* )

Although I have my issues with the Church, sometimes being Catholic makes the world a LOT simpler. Earlier this week, the Pope pretty much commanded all of us to do charitable works.

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_Gatsby You seem to be mis-applying the term "amoral" to the individual, rather than his actions, to evoke a negative perception toward the individual engaging in amoral conduct. A person who puts himself first in certain aspects of his life is not necessarily amoral (without moral standards), but the act of putting himself first is amoral. Such act is neither "good" nor "evil", it just simply is.

Don't agree with you. I said that a person who puts himself first may be without moral standards or amoral. Much like young children are amoral. One hopes that people graduate from that state. The term amoral is not misapplied. And yes, applied to adults, the term amoral in my mind would be a negative.

You can be self interested and moral; for example, many find it uplifting to give to charity, thus in their self interest and moral. But this kind of self interest is far from an attitude of "I've got mine, forget yours." Which I still maintain is immoral.

Quote:

Plato believed that morality must be based on objective truth and must be reconciled with self-interest: that is, morality must be shown to be in the interest of the individual.

Not quite, Plato believed it is in the true self interest of an individual to be just or moral. Perceived self interest is not the same as actual self interest. This is the difference between self interest and selfishness. "I've got mine, forget yours" is selfish.

This dance is too tough to do in soundbites. I prefer the simplicity of what Greg and Brewer said.

[Jay_Gatsby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha Don't agree with you.* *I said that a person who puts himself first may be without moral standards or amoral. Much like young children are amoral.* One hopes that people graduate from that state.* *The term amoral is not misapplied. And yes, applied to adults, the term amoral in my mind would be a negative.

You're right. That's exactly what you said. However, my initial post regarding "morality" was addressing the amoral nature of the act of putting oneself first. You believe that doing so is immoral. We disagree.* *

Quote:

You can be self-interested and moral; for example, many find it uplifting to give to charity, thus in their self interest and moral.* But this kind of self interest is far from*an attitude of "I've got mine, forget yours."* Which I still maintain is immoral.

So in that instance being self-interested is amoral? It would have to be, since you believe that being self-interested is immoral. Put differently, how can someone who is acting in their self-interest (immorally) give charity (which you consider to be a moral act)? The answer may be that you believe such an individual is giving charity for the "wrong" reason (an immoral one, selfishness?), rather than the right reason (a moral one, selflessness?). Then again, why does the motivation matter, if the act itself is moral? (Some might assert that giving charity is immoral, since it creates a dependency on its recipients).