4 ms·

Not everyone subscribes to such a dark, cynical view of the world. I realize that there are thousands of invisible advantages I have over an identical me born i

Not everyone subscribes to such a dark, cynical view of the world. I realize that there are thousands of invisible advantages I have over an identical me born in Africa. Giving to charity is a small way of shrinking the gap.

maxharris 13y ago
There is nothing dark or cynical in what I have said. What is dark about "live the best life you can live" and "make the most of what you've got"? Fact: to achieve your own goals, you need 100% of your time, money and effort.
- festivusr 13y ago
  Sticking Fact: in front of something doesn't make it true. Living your best life, and achieving your own goals, doesn't mean ignoring everyone else in the world's well-being (for most values of "your own goals" and "your best life").
- Afforess 13y ago
  Anyone who believes that charity and giving are not morally good actions clearly has a warped and extremely cynical worldview.
  - maxharris 13y ago
    Straw man. Charity and giving are morally neutral actions. On its own, charity doesn't improve your life. Remember, the purpose of morality to guide you so that you can enjoy a good life. A morality (that's good for life) should not tell you to suffer, give up what you care about and die.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Remember, the purpose of morality to guide you so that you can enjoy a good life. This statement itself is a controversial moral position, rather than a universally-accepted statement of the purpose of morality.
      - maxharris 13y ago
        It depends. In America, most people agree with my statement. Elsewhere, sometimes, but not necessarily. But so what? There is no universally-accepted statement of anything, anywhere. The choice each of us has when reading anything is: "well, what do I think about this?" And for that, the number of people that agree or disagree is irrelevant.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > It depends No, claims about the "purpose of morality" are non-factual statements of personal preference in any context. It doesn't depend. > In America, most people agree with my statement. Aside from the fact that this is irrelevant, I see no evidence that this is true. > But so what? There is no universally-accepted statement of anything, anywhere. There's a categorical difference between logical claims (which are abstract and which are true or false independent of factual context), fact claims (which are, in principal at least, subject to objective validation as true or false), and value (including moral) claims (which are statements of personal preference). The problem with your claim about the purpose of morality is that it presented a value claim as if it were a true statement of fact.
        maxharris 13y ago
        No, claims about the "purpose of morality" are non-factual statements of personal preference in any context. Well, you lost me there. When I choose not to lie to my family and friends, or when I deal with others justly, I am behaving that way (i.e., morally) because I want a good, long, happy life. It is not a matter of "personal preference." (It is absurd to say, "It is merely my personal preference to live well by honest means. Others may choose differently, and live well by dishonest means.") If I lied to my wife, or cheated a customer out of money, I would suffer, and that's an inescapable fact. (If you don't understand this point, just ask and I'll explain why.) Show me someone, out here in reality that lives a good, long and happy life by lying to his spouse, cheating his customers, and stealing to top it off at night. Or even someone that just does one of the three, occasionally. There's a categorical difference between logical claims (which are abstract and which are true or false independent of factual context), fact claims (which are, in principal at least, subject to objective validation as true or false), and value (including moral) claims (which are statements of personal preference). Sigh. In relation to an individual person's life, for every is, this is an ought. For example, suppose that I am driving my car down the highway. There is a giant boulder in the middle of the road ahead. If I want to live, I ought to slow down and turn to avoid it. So much for Hume!
    - betterunix 13y ago
      "Remember, the purpose of morality to guide you so that you can enjoy a good life." Yet almost every moral code condemns murder. What does that have to do with ensuring that I personally live a good life?
      - maxharris 13y ago
        Just try and imagine for a moment what actually happens to a murderer evading justice. Even a psychopath will worry about the evidence they've invariably left behind, which leads to getting caught. A life of constant, nagging doubt is not a good life. Can you imagine trying to plan for the long-term under those (self-created) circumstances? "Well, maybe I'll major in Geology. ...that is, if they don't catch me first," or "maybe I'll buy this house. It has a 30-year mortgage, so when I pay it off, I'll be able to travel to New Zealand, just like I've always wanted. ...that is, if they don't catch me first," and "I wonder if that new forensic technique will implicate me. I sure hope not!" A criminal will grow uncomfortable every time something reminds him of his crimes, because, short of coming clean and turning himself in, the only way to escape the above mental processes is to evade it altogether, and that means shutting out anything that might remind him of his crime. This includes an ever-increasing array of things, many of which would only be tangentially associated with the original act. Escaping knowledge of reality becomes a deeply ingrained mental habit. Lies to other people are inevitably required in this pursuit. Most people are not psychopaths, so there is an additional and deeply emotional dimension to the above for them. They will feel terrible, and deeply guilty for the rest of their lives. Actual happiness is an impossibility in that state... Isn't all of this obvious?
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_virtue_of_selfishness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_virtue_of_selfishness
    - gordaco 13y ago
      I don't know if that was what you wanted to imply, but what Afforess said is precisely why there is a lot of people who think that Ayn Rand had, well, a warped and extremely cynical worldview.
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        It was a quick confirmation in case there was any doubt.
- dyselon 13y ago
  Well, depending on your goals. I'm doing a pretty good job meeting mine with the resources I've got, so I don't mind kicking in a bit to give other people the opportunity to do the same.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "Fact: to achieve your own goals, you need 100% of your time, money and effort." Well, this guy would disagree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_ford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_ford
- notahacker 13y ago
  Most people's own goals actually include enriching the lives of other people, even if those people aren't directly or indirectly willing and able to pay for it. There are those who require 100% of their money to simply achieve their personal consumption goals but -whether financially or emotionally- they're very poor.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Fact: to achieve your own goals, you need 100% of your time, money and effort. Fact: its possible for one's own goals to include improving other people's quality of life.
- untog 13y ago
  Well, the best life I could live does not include everyone else in the city around me being homeless and destitute. So, helping others can in fact help me achieve my own goals. I'd like to believe that I am not the only person that holds these goals.
- mpyne 13y ago
  What if my goal is to leave the world in better shape than how it was when I arrived in it? It could certainly be called "selfish" still but I see no reason at all why helping others should take away from your own self-improvement. In fact IMHO the most I've ever improved myself has been under the aegis of service.
- adammil 13y ago
  Giving money to charity does not make you a better person, but is a common act of better people. It is interesting that you defined a philosophy where a person should take moral credit for never outgrowing their infantile narcissism. But Steve Jobs is a strange moral model, since some people believe he was simply amoral. Personally, I think it is often the primitive, constant focus on self that prevents us from making the most of our lives.
- glomph 13y ago
  For me it is pretty dark even imagining being able to just ignore the needs of others.

maxharris 13y ago

There is nothing dark or cynical in what I have said. What is dark about "live the best life you can live" and "make the most of what you've got"? Fact: to achieve your own goals, you need 100% of your time, money and effort.

festivusr 13y ago
Sticking Fact: in front of something doesn't make it true. Living your best life, and achieving your own goals, doesn't mean ignoring everyone else in the world's well-being (for most values of "your own goals" and "your best life").
Afforess 13y ago
Anyone who believes that charity and giving are not morally good actions clearly has a warped and extremely cynical worldview.
- maxharris 13y ago
  Straw man. Charity and giving are morally neutral actions. On its own, charity doesn't improve your life. Remember, the purpose of morality to guide you so that you can enjoy a good life. A morality (that's good for life) should not tell you to suffer, give up what you care about and die.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Remember, the purpose of morality to guide you so that you can enjoy a good life. This statement itself is a controversial moral position, rather than a universally-accepted statement of the purpose of morality.
    - maxharris 13y ago
      It depends. In America, most people agree with my statement. Elsewhere, sometimes, but not necessarily. But so what? There is no universally-accepted statement of anything, anywhere. The choice each of us has when reading anything is: "well, what do I think about this?" And for that, the number of people that agree or disagree is irrelevant.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > It depends No, claims about the "purpose of morality" are non-factual statements of personal preference in any context. It doesn't depend. > In America, most people agree with my statement. Aside from the fact that this is irrelevant, I see no evidence that this is true. > But so what? There is no universally-accepted statement of anything, anywhere. There's a categorical difference between logical claims (which are abstract and which are true or false independent of factual context), fact claims (which are, in principal at least, subject to objective validation as true or false), and value (including moral) claims (which are statements of personal preference). The problem with your claim about the purpose of morality is that it presented a value claim as if it were a true statement of fact.
        maxharris 13y ago
        No, claims about the "purpose of morality" are non-factual statements of personal preference in any context. Well, you lost me there. When I choose not to lie to my family and friends, or when I deal with others justly, I am behaving that way (i.e., morally) because I want a good, long, happy life. It is not a matter of "personal preference." (It is absurd to say, "It is merely my personal preference to live well by honest means. Others may choose differently, and live well by dishonest means.") If I lied to my wife, or cheated a customer out of money, I would suffer, and that's an inescapable fact. (If you don't understand this point, just ask and I'll explain why.) Show me someone, out here in reality that lives a good, long and happy life by lying to his spouse, cheating his customers, and stealing to top it off at night. Or even someone that just does one of the three, occasionally. There's a categorical difference between logical claims (which are abstract and which are true or false independent of factual context), fact claims (which are, in principal at least, subject to objective validation as true or false), and value (including moral) claims (which are statements of personal preference). Sigh. In relation to an individual person's life, for every is, this is an ought. For example, suppose that I am driving my car down the highway. There is a giant boulder in the middle of the road ahead. If I want to live, I ought to slow down and turn to avoid it. So much for Hume!
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "Remember, the purpose of morality to guide you so that you can enjoy a good life." Yet almost every moral code condemns murder. What does that have to do with ensuring that I personally live a good life?
    - maxharris 13y ago
      Just try and imagine for a moment what actually happens to a murderer evading justice. Even a psychopath will worry about the evidence they've invariably left behind, which leads to getting caught. A life of constant, nagging doubt is not a good life. Can you imagine trying to plan for the long-term under those (self-created) circumstances? "Well, maybe I'll major in Geology. ...that is, if they don't catch me first," or "maybe I'll buy this house. It has a 30-year mortgage, so when I pay it off, I'll be able to travel to New Zealand, just like I've always wanted. ...that is, if they don't catch me first," and "I wonder if that new forensic technique will implicate me. I sure hope not!" A criminal will grow uncomfortable every time something reminds him of his crimes, because, short of coming clean and turning himself in, the only way to escape the above mental processes is to evade it altogether, and that means shutting out anything that might remind him of his crime. This includes an ever-increasing array of things, many of which would only be tangentially associated with the original act. Escaping knowledge of reality becomes a deeply ingrained mental habit. Lies to other people are inevitably required in this pursuit. Most people are not psychopaths, so there is an additional and deeply emotional dimension to the above for them. They will feel terrible, and deeply guilty for the rest of their lives. Actual happiness is an impossibility in that state... Isn't all of this obvious?
- pessimizer 13y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_virtue_of_selfishness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_virtue_of_selfishness
  - gordaco 13y ago
    I don't know if that was what you wanted to imply, but what Afforess said is precisely why there is a lot of people who think that Ayn Rand had, well, a warped and extremely cynical worldview.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      It was a quick confirmation in case there was any doubt.
dyselon 13y ago
Well, depending on your goals. I'm doing a pretty good job meeting mine with the resources I've got, so I don't mind kicking in a bit to give other people the opportunity to do the same.
betterunix 13y ago
"Fact: to achieve your own goals, you need 100% of your time, money and effort." Well, this guy would disagree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_ford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_ford
notahacker 13y ago
Most people's own goals actually include enriching the lives of other people, even if those people aren't directly or indirectly willing and able to pay for it. There are those who require 100% of their money to simply achieve their personal consumption goals but -whether financially or emotionally- they're very poor.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Fact: to achieve your own goals, you need 100% of your time, money and effort. Fact: its possible for one's own goals to include improving other people's quality of life.
untog 13y ago
Well, the best life I could live does not include everyone else in the city around me being homeless and destitute. So, helping others can in fact help me achieve my own goals. I'd like to believe that I am not the only person that holds these goals.
mpyne 13y ago
What if my goal is to leave the world in better shape than how it was when I arrived in it? It could certainly be called "selfish" still but I see no reason at all why helping others should take away from your own self-improvement. In fact IMHO the most I've ever improved myself has been under the aegis of service.
adammil 13y ago
Giving money to charity does not make you a better person, but is a common act of better people. It is interesting that you defined a philosophy where a person should take moral credit for never outgrowing their infantile narcissism. But Steve Jobs is a strange moral model, since some people believe he was simply amoral. Personally, I think it is often the primitive, constant focus on self that prevents us from making the most of our lives.
glomph 13y ago
For me it is pretty dark even imagining being able to just ignore the needs of others.