3 ms·

I think doing something for profit - purely for your own good - is the most noble thing you can do. (When I say for your own good, I mean what's for your own g

I think doing something for profit - purely for your own good - is the most noble thing you can do. (When I say for your own good, I mean what's for your own good long-term. Cheating, stealing, lying, etc., is ruled out, because that's not in anyone's self-interest, long-term.)

contextfree 16y ago
Congratulations, you are a sociopath.
- maxharris 16y ago
  I said: "When I say for your own good, I mean what's for your own good long-term. Cheating, stealing, lying, etc., is ruled out, because that's not in anyone's self-interest, long-term." How does this endorse a lack of moral conscience or antisocial behavior? On what grounds do you judge your morality as better than mine? At the very least, do you think that you have to think about morality rationally, as I do?
abstractbill 16y ago
The most noble? Really? So, for example, running a casino is more noble than volunteering for Doctors Without Borders?
- kiba 16y ago
  Altruism, by itself doesn't mean much of anything. I could give 10 bucks to a poor man and than that poor man proceed to squander it. I could have given money to the wrong people(who I thought was nice), who then proceed to buy capitals for criminal activities such as murdering individuals. Of course, it's easy to sneer at the wal-mart or Henry Ford people of the world. However, remember that they have made it much easier to help people by increasing productivity. An engineer who built a safe water supply system has saved more people than most doctors in the world. A sanitation company has saved lives by preventing the accumulation of trash and by disposing it safely. All of which are occupations that are unseen to the public eyes. Doctors, we can see. Doctors who work on charity, we can see. But what we can't see is those profiteers who nonetheless help people but are in the background.
  - abstractbill 16y ago
    You give reasonable examples of people doing good things for a profit, and other people being altruistic to no good end. Great, but that's not the question. Max's assertion was that there is no nobler thing than doing something for a profit. That's simply not true.
    - kiba 16y ago
      Max's assertion was that there is no nobler thing than doing something for a profit. That's simply not true. Well, I would argue that everything I do, altruistic or not, goes back to satisfying my selfishness. In that point of view, selfishness is a human condition, not something to be ashamed of. It is also part of the human condition to have social relations with other human beings. Sometime, that might mean caring for others even if we receive no hedonistic benefits. It's quite essential to our health, really.
- maxharris 16y ago
  I'm not interested in running a casino. And medical research is far more noble than Doctors Without Borders.
AlisdairO 16y ago
Why? Surely making the group rational decision is the most noble thing you can do? Sometimes, sure, that aligns with the individually rational decision, but often it does not.
- kiba 16y ago
  In my opinion, I would care more about the individuals and then the group, because individuals make the group. Instead of saying that we must sacrifice one person for the good for the group, people would say that it's deplorable that somebody have to die. In theory, I would not force someone to die, unless they volunteer to do so. Of course, it might be different when I am placed in the actual situation itself. It's like asking the person to make a decision between crashing into a man to save the lives on board the train or make a decision to swerves but endanger everyone in the train.
  - AlisdairO 16y ago
    That's not really what I said, though. The point about an individually rational decision (where it does not align with the group rational decision) is that it is less good for the group than the group rational decision. So if all your individuals in the group make the individually rational decision, the group as a whole suffers (and indeed, each individual is overall worse off than if everyone had taken group rational decisions). We're not talking here about forcing people to do anything - we're saying what is noble, and what is not. My argument is that nobility is taking the group rational decision. This may sometimes mean sacrificing one's own immediate desires.

contextfree 16y ago

Congratulations, you are a sociopath.

maxharris 16y ago
I said: "When I say for your own good, I mean what's for your own good long-term. Cheating, stealing, lying, etc., is ruled out, because that's not in anyone's self-interest, long-term." How does this endorse a lack of moral conscience or antisocial behavior? On what grounds do you judge your morality as better than mine? At the very least, do you think that you have to think about morality rationally, as I do?

abstractbill 16y ago

The most noble? Really? So, for example, running a casino is more noble than volunteering for Doctors Without Borders?

kiba 16y ago
Altruism, by itself doesn't mean much of anything. I could give 10 bucks to a poor man and than that poor man proceed to squander it. I could have given money to the wrong people(who I thought was nice), who then proceed to buy capitals for criminal activities such as murdering individuals. Of course, it's easy to sneer at the wal-mart or Henry Ford people of the world. However, remember that they have made it much easier to help people by increasing productivity. An engineer who built a safe water supply system has saved more people than most doctors in the world. A sanitation company has saved lives by preventing the accumulation of trash and by disposing it safely. All of which are occupations that are unseen to the public eyes. Doctors, we can see. Doctors who work on charity, we can see. But what we can't see is those profiteers who nonetheless help people but are in the background.
- abstractbill 16y ago
  You give reasonable examples of people doing good things for a profit, and other people being altruistic to no good end. Great, but that's not the question. Max's assertion was that there is no nobler thing than doing something for a profit. That's simply not true.
  - kiba 16y ago
    Max's assertion was that there is no nobler thing than doing something for a profit. That's simply not true. Well, I would argue that everything I do, altruistic or not, goes back to satisfying my selfishness. In that point of view, selfishness is a human condition, not something to be ashamed of. It is also part of the human condition to have social relations with other human beings. Sometime, that might mean caring for others even if we receive no hedonistic benefits. It's quite essential to our health, really.
maxharris 16y ago
I'm not interested in running a casino. And medical research is far more noble than Doctors Without Borders.

AlisdairO 16y ago

Why? Surely making the group rational decision is the most noble thing you can do? Sometimes, sure, that aligns with the individually rational decision, but often it does not.

kiba 16y ago
In my opinion, I would care more about the individuals and then the group, because individuals make the group. Instead of saying that we must sacrifice one person for the good for the group, people would say that it's deplorable that somebody have to die. In theory, I would not force someone to die, unless they volunteer to do so. Of course, it might be different when I am placed in the actual situation itself. It's like asking the person to make a decision between crashing into a man to save the lives on board the train or make a decision to swerves but endanger everyone in the train.
- AlisdairO 16y ago
  That's not really what I said, though. The point about an individually rational decision (where it does not align with the group rational decision) is that it is less good for the group than the group rational decision. So if all your individuals in the group make the individually rational decision, the group as a whole suffers (and indeed, each individual is overall worse off than if everyone had taken group rational decisions). We're not talking here about forcing people to do anything - we're saying what is noble, and what is not. My argument is that nobility is taking the group rational decision. This may sometimes mean sacrificing one's own immediate desires.