-->
@Tarik
the definitions of words isn’t predicated on whether or not you and I agree on them
For the purposes of this conversation that is literally THE ONLY THING that matters.
AFSFSM
Posts
Total:
323
-->
@secularmerlin
At some point your failure to be able to understand my point is more of a you problem than a me problem.
Excuse me? No sir, your inability to adequately articulate your point is a YOU problem NOT a ME problem, I understand ENGLISH just fine thank you very much, come correct next time otherwise have a nice day ✌🏾.
-->
@Tarik
Caring for others = providing for their needs
IF you understand English THEN this will be clear to you.
People need social interaction in order to maintain mental health and by necessity are providing for the need for social interactions of others.
-->
@secularmerlin
Caring for others = providing for their needs
Prove it.
-->
@Tarik
That is what I mean when I say those words. What is the problem here?
-->
@secularmerlin
Okay, then why do you believe that?
-->
@Tarik
Okay, then why do you believe that?
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not believing here I am communicating.
-->
@secularmerlin
...Whatever, in that case what’s selfish about proving for the needs of others?
-->
@Tarik
Whatever, in that case what’s selfish about proving for the needs of others?
Everything is context. You can provide for the needs of others selfishly. You can also provide for them selflessly.
Caring about others is the same. If you only care about those whom you are certain are providing for your needs ... well you could call that a little selfish.
-->
@secularmerlin
well you could call that a little selfish.
How? There’s nothing selfish about treating others the same way they treat me.
-->
@Tarik
What’s selfish about that?
Selfish = being chiefly interested in one's own profit or pleasure.
If you are caring for and about others chiefly because you stand to profit by or to be pleased by them caring for and about you in return then that = selfish.
I'd say that it is possible.
-->
@secularmerlin
Selfish = being chiefly interested in one's own profit or pleasure.
But it isn’t chiefly in one’s own profit or pleasure if it’s at the cost of providing for SOMEONE ELSE.
-->
@Tarik
Being selfish is about one's motives not one's actions.
-->
@secularmerlin
Motive- a reason for DOING something.
Doing something is an action.
-->
@Tarik
Motive- a REASON for doing something.
The motive behind the action not the action itself.
-->
@secularmerlin
Being selfish is about one's motives not one's actions.
Selfish-(of a person, ACTION, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.
I love how you omit the bold when presenting the definition, nice try.
-->
@Tarik
Selfish-(of a person, action , or MOTIVE)
Not ignoring anything but we are discussing motive in this case.
-->
@Tarik
How do we determine if an ACTION is selfish if not by the MOTIVE behind it?
-->
@secularmerlin
Not ignoring anything but we are discussing motive in this case.
We’re ALSO discussing actions.
How do we determine if an ACTION is selfish if not by the MOTIVE behind it?
This is a separate narrative that I don’t care to get into right now.
-->
@Tarik
How do we determine if an ACTION is selfish if not by the MOTIVE behind it?This is a separate narrative that I don’t care to get into right now.
Well in order to determine whether or not an ACTION is selfish we must have some way of determining what makes an ACTION selfish. We are going to have to get into it right now or we will not be able to discuss the selfishness of any action whatever. Again a break down in communication and again specifically because you are putting up roadblocks.
-->
@secularmerlin
How do we determine if an ACTION is selfish if not by the MOTIVE behind it?
By looking at whether or not the action lacks consideration for others or is concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.
But it isn’t chiefly in one’s own profit or pleasure if it’s at the cost of providing for SOMEONE ELSE.
-->
@Tarik
Fine for sake of the discussion I’ll concede to that point, but my argumentBut it isn’t chiefly in one’s own profit or pleasure if it’s at the cost of providing for SOMEONE ELSE.still stands.
It is if your MOTIVES are selfish. If you are providing for another's needs CHIEFLY because you expect to profit from them somehow (even just for their company going forward since social interaction is a necessity) would you disagree that it would be selfish?
I am not arguing that selfishness is the ONLY reason to engage in secular morality only that BEING selfish is not a good reason to have no moral standard.
Bottom line EVEN IF you are only in this for yourself you should still consider caring for and about others BECAUSE it is essentially self care.
-->
@secularmerlin
It is if your MOTIVES are selfish.
Providing for others because they provide for you isn’t selfish because the action cancels out the motive.
-->
@secularmerlin
I think one major problem is that this ethic can't apply to people who don't care about being alive. If someone doesn't care about being alive, does that permit them to use people as instruments?
All hypothetical imperatives have the problem, where if their IF principle is rejected, then they can opt out of being moral. Hypothetical imperatives will always suffer from this arbitrariness in the moral sphere.
-->
@Sum1hugme
I argued this point previously and he conceded his argument isn’t responsive to that which is a huge flaw.
I too agree he puts too much emphasis on hypotheticals.
-->
@Tarik
Yes, not everybody intuitively wants to live.
-->
@Tarik
action cancels out the motive.
This is nonsense. Utter tosh. If I help you pick apples because I want to be helpful then picking apples is selfless. If I am picking them solely to convince you to bake me an apple pie and my chief concern is my pie then that is selfish.
If I work at a soup kitchen as a form of charity that is selfless. If I work at a soup kitchen because I want recognition for my "good works" and my chief concern is my reputation that is selfish. Actions are neither selfless nor selfish on their own devoid of context.
-->
@secularmerlin
Actions are neither selfless nor selfish on their own devoid of context.
If the context your referring to is the motive behind the action then that’s a separate narrative from the action in question, but nonetheless you conceded that providing for someone else (an action BTW) isn’t selfish so I guess for now you can refer to your little acronym as A.F.S.M.
-->
@Tarik
How shall we determine if an act is being performed CHEIFLY for one's own profit and pleasure without first examining what MOTIVATES the action?
This is a serious question especially since you have offered no alternative means of making the determination.
-->
@Sum1hugme
I think one major problem is that this ethic can't apply to people who don't care about being alive.
So what?