AFSFSM

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 323
Topic's author
#301
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Well you didn’t provide much context in your opening statement.
What constitutes a "good" action is subjectively determined by the goal and what is a "selfish" action is subjective to the motives of the actor. I am making the context clear now.
#302
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
What do you personally believe is a "good" example of an action that is NOT selfish?
Me answering that doesn’t resolve seculars A.F.S.F.S.M. problem.
It might, if you follow it to its logical conclusion.
#303
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
It's pretty clear that caring about the general well-being of all humans is not essential to one's own survival and or general wellbeing.

I only need to convince the individuals that directly contribute to my personal wellbeing that I am contributing and or have already contributed (and they "owe" me) and or will contribute to their general wellbeing.

This creates an "in-group" and an "out-group" which is another way of saying "TRIBALISM".

Through a lens of "TRIBALISM", it is very likely to my personal advantage to kill and or subjugate some or all members of the "out-group".
Topic's author
#304
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
It's pretty clear that caring about the general well-being of all humans is not essential to one's own survival and or general wellbeing.

I only need to convince the individuals that directly contribute to my personal wellbeing that I am contributing and or have already contributed (and they "owe" me) and or will contribute to their general wellbeing.

This creates an "in-group" and an "out-group" which is another way of saying "TRIBALISM".

Through a lens of "TRIBALISM", it is very likely to my personal advantage to kill and or subjugate some or all members of the "out-group".
Well then... back to the drawing board. Tribalism is insufficient to the moral principles I am most anxious to promote. 

#305
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I am making the context clear now.
There’s nothing clear about subjectivity, it’s all arbitrary.
#306
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
It might, if you follow it to its logical conclusion.
Which is?
#307
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
It might, if you follow it to its logical conclusion.
Which is?
I cannot personally guarantee where this conversation will lead us.
Topic's author
#308
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
This argument doesn't lead to caring for and about all others it leads to tribalism. It is insufficient to my personal moral standard and so I am as of now no longer supporting this argument. I'll have to formulate another. 
#309
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Then claiming a logical conclusion sounds a bit premature.
#310
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I'll have to formulate another. 
You do that 👏🏾.
Topic's author
#311
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
What argument would you offer to someone who is only concerned with their own personal profit and pleasure to care for and about others?
#312
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I don’t know buddy, your on your own with this one.

#313
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Well then... back to the drawing board. Tribalism is insufficient to the moral principles I am most anxious to promote. 
Hold on.

I believe this can be salvaged.

At least from the point of view from the subjugated portion of the population, it would seem to be to their advantage to preach a doctrine of "non-violent" "voluntarism" where all individuals are given human-rights and afforded some basic human dignity.

This is the core conceit of the famous fairy-tale, "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas". [LINK]
Topic's author
#314
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Then my argument actually serves as a tool to gain complicity from the subjugated which is far worse.
#315
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
If or iff are useless words since they acknowledge only that which is currently not true. Then the alleged truth of what follows depends entirely on a conditional shift.
#316
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
You are implying a morality tale. Ants don't do morality. They do instinct, i.e., there is no higher brain function that can determine right/wrong conditions to establish a moral ground. Therefore, ants [and animals in general, other than humans,  such as those you suggested] do not belong in your morality tale.
Topic's author
#317
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
Humans are also animals and also do instinct. In any case I am no longer endorsing this argument in this form. It is a tool of tribalism and that is not my personal moral standard. 
#318
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Humans are also animals
As I have already said. Twice. But humans add the higher brain function of morality, which other animals do not express. Tell me how instinct is able to conceive, let alone practice logic? As you have presented it it in an alleged syllogism, it is not logical at all. So, perhaps your syllogism is more expressible by animals, but not necessarily humans unless they suspend morality and act on instinct only.
Topic's author
#319
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
Animals show (varying) degrees of altruism and a sense of fairness. Humans have just evolved more complex communication and seem to have more sophisticated thought processes. 

Your dog must still learn to "behave".
#320
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
If or iff are useless words since they acknowledge only that which is currently not true. Then the alleged truth of what follows depends entirely on a conditional shift.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
#321
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
As you have presented it it in an alleged syllogism, it is not logical at all.
Can you be slightly more specific?
#322
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Then my argument actually serves as a tool to gain complicity from the subjugated which is far worse.
Try this.

(IFF) you value food (THEN) you (implicitly) value the entire process of growing and transporting and preserving and preparing that food

(IFF) you expect to have food for at least the next twenty years (for yourself and or your close friends and relatives) (THEN) you should verify the sustainability of the entire process of growing and transporting and preserving and preparing that food

(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
#323
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
If you only care about survival and nothing else in the short term, then AFSFSM can lead to tribalism. It doesn't necessarily lead to tribalism if you care about long term survival and happiness. Unless one wishes to do nothing but hunt, forage and defend oneself and family, then one is dependent on far more than a small "tribe" for general happiness. We depend on farmers to produce food, migrant workers to collect it, carpenters to build homes, police to protect us, artists to create forms of entertainment, people in other countries to build electronic devices, etc. Caring for all of those people and so many more, of whom we are unaware, that contribute to our well-being makes perfect sense. Your argument seems to have a flaw with the use of only the word "survival" which does include concepts such as "happiness" or "flourishing", etc. If you include something along the lines of "well-being" to your formula, it might lead to a conclusion more in line with your original thinking.