4 ms·
Nope, good for me is also good, as long as it doesn't cause much harm. Once you start talking opportunity cost, it gets a bit more complicated. But I implement
by wisty 15y ago
Nope, good for me is also good, as long as it doesn't cause much harm.
Once you start talking opportunity cost, it gets a bit more complicated. But I implement my standard using reasonable heuristics, not some platonic maximization.
Just because I believe in some underlying standard doesn't mean I act on it. I could cook up some underlying standard that's easy to meet (do what's good for number 1, do what "feel'), but that's kind of silly.
- maxharris 15y agoGoing one level below the discussion about the correct definition of selfishness vs. selflessness (the answer here might help us understand what the definition should be): What do you use as the standard for what "good" is? I.e., if you were to say that "healthy food is good," the question I'm asking is, "good for what?" Put another way, when you evaluate something as good or bad (or neutral) in a specific context, by what means do you decide which of these categories to place the thing in?