tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101896362709274025.post5936410152035548670..comments2023-04-14T06:44:19.098-07:00Comments on Inquiring Infidel: Morality- Desirism vs. Goal TheoryInquiring Infidelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11601349182906918700noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101896362709274025.post-13556866447878388192013-02-22T22:08:12.330-08:002013-02-22T22:08:12.330-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18252007129827580509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101896362709274025.post-80975864069965460422012-09-03T08:40:51.645-07:002012-09-03T08:40:51.645-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anti Money Launderinghttp://aml-assassin.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101896362709274025.post-23779411342239687722012-04-11T19:30:37.091-07:002012-04-11T19:30:37.091-07:00Dude, if you wanna have 8-year-olds to 88-year-old...Dude, if you wanna have 8-year-olds to 88-year-olds for eternity, the choice is up to you in Heaven... precisely what I want after this tiring, redundant, painfull, ridiculous, retarded earthly existence of only 85ish years. Make your choice -SAW --- God blessa youse -Fr. Sarducci, ol SNL-blessed holy socks, the non-perishable-zealothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00241446130197185049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101896362709274025.post-63229925578839551202011-05-06T14:23:07.851-07:002011-05-06T14:23:07.851-07:00In as much as we are able, we aught to pursue our ...In as much as we are able, we aught to pursue our own interests in such a way as to maximize our own desires and our fellow mans. Lines do cross making this an almost impossible goal which ends in compromise, which sometimes,(most times), can defeat the desires of all. I think we see this more than not these days especially in politics. Our current two party system has outlived it's usefulness IMO, much like capitalism has. We seem to do nothing more than compromise the good out of everything. <br /><br />In your last paragraph I keep seeing conflicts of interest in industries with environmentalists in the back of my head, and other such conflicts of interest across most of the spectrum of business. I think what it boils down to is that most of what we do now will be so radically changed that it's doubtful the world economy could survive it. I certainly don't see conservatives ever giving ear to change that radical, unless there is a plan to insidiously change policy little by little. <br /><br />I hope that makes sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101896362709274025.post-18498702464933990602011-05-06T08:33:53.945-07:002011-05-06T08:33:53.945-07:00@Anonymous: I don't think the emotion of carin...@Anonymous: I don't think the emotion of caring about the health and happiness of one's children is a superfluous emotion. It is a vitally important emotion. If you tried to make it so that people cared less for their children in such circumstances, I think that would have very harmful consequences in other circumstances.<br /><br />On your second point, we can have desires for a lot of things. I don't see why world peace couldn't be one of them. I think we sometimes value things above and beyond the happiness they give us, such as with valuing the success of one's children even after one dies. I am not saying that this would override all their desires. I am saying that the desire for world peace could be one of their desires (and that they could have other desires which would also promote world peace).<br /><br />I do not think the two possibilities you name are distinct. On the first option, if we encourage desires that help other people, then they would be motivated to act in ways that would make the world a better place. I also think we should strive for the second (though I would talk about desires instead of happiness since I think we value things beyond having happy brain states, and if you define happiness as having all our desires fulfilled, it's clearer if you just say that instead of using the word happiness). Everyone will pursue their own desires. What we want is for everyone to pursue those desires in such a way that everyone in society gets more of what they desire. If individual desires and societal reward and punishment are already set up perfectly so that people never hurt others when pursuing their own desires, then we're already set. But if not, then we all have a self-interest in making sure that other people have desires that help rather than harm others.Inquiring Infidelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11601349182906918700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101896362709274025.post-62871854933865525582011-05-06T07:51:15.636-07:002011-05-06T07:51:15.636-07:00"If a mother had to either kill one of her ch..."If a mother had to either kill one of her children or have them both be killed, happiness would be maximized by her gleefully killing one of her children without hesitation or remorse".<br />Removing the adjective 'gleefully', isn't this what we see in the animal kingdom occasionally, even through abortion in humans? The superfluous emotions a mother feels about her offspring which is most times illogical to the necessity of successfully raising a family, hinder morality more often than express it. Her desire to be happy thus entails something less than desirable morality in that she does what makes her happy rather than what is necessary for the best moral outcome.<br /><br />I also have trouble understanding how a moral agent can have a desire for, say, world peace which overrides personal happiness. I personally never actually believed that anyone gives a flip about the world being a better place for all to the extent that they would not pursue personal desires or happiness. There are two ways to look at it; everyone works to make the world a better place, or everyone pursues personal happiness in such a way that the collective is happy. The latter seems much more achievable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101896362709274025.post-28330202041811747292011-05-04T07:58:30.694-07:002011-05-04T07:58:30.694-07:00Thank you for the praise; I'm glad you liked t...Thank you for the praise; I'm glad you liked the debate.<br /><br />First, I think I did a bad job distinguishing between the fulfillment of a desire (having the desired state be the true state of the world) and the satisfaction of a desire (which I see as more about whether your brain thinks the desire was fulfilled). I slipped up a few times and said the latter when I meant the former. Desires are about states of the world, so I'm not sure what you mean by stand-alone self-fulfilling desires. We could isolate them and satisfy them, but we could not fulfill them without changing the state of the world.<br /><br />But let's say that these 200 desires were for something trivial like flipping a switch that doesn't do anything. You are talking about creating 200 desires that would be fulfilled, vs. thwarting 100 desires that already exist by killing someone. The relevant desires are those that exist and no matter how many satisfied children you give birth to, it doesn't make up for killing someone.<br /><br />My view of morality also does not focus on the individual actions, but on the desires. A strong aversion (or negative desire) to killing is something we have strong reason to promote because it generally makes the world a better place by fulfilling far more desires than it thwarts. The desire to kill is immoral, even in cases like with the mother where it may bring greater satisfaction.<br /><br />I am saying that while it gives me some happiness/satisfaction to think I'm doing a good thing in the instant between deciding to sacrifice myself to save others and the moment I die, I value saving them far beyond the happiness it brings me. There are other things that would bring me the same amount of happiness which I would not lay down my life for.<br /><br />Desires are not illegitimate unless they have some ultimate reason. I may desire to be satisfied for no other reason than that that's what I want. I may desire for my children to have a good life for no other reason than that that is what I want. I see no reason to say that there can only be one thing we desire and that everything else we desire must only be a means to that end.Inquiring Infidelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11601349182906918700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101896362709274025.post-59684317154921258582011-05-03T23:33:57.588-07:002011-05-03T23:33:57.588-07:00Thanks again for participating in the debate. You...Thanks again for participating in the debate. You did an excellent job.<br /><br />The video will be posted over the next few days here: http://www.youtube.com/user/RPDEthicalSocietyStL?feature=mhum#g/c/DC9DEC485F9D2838<br /><br />I did have a question I wanted to ask along the same line's as Rob's "pill that brings happiness for 1,000 years, but kills everyone else" question: If we could magically sequester desires and remove them from the conscious awareness of the rest of the brain and give each desire a strict, straight-forward mechanical fulfillment...would it be more "moral" if 200 of these stand alone self-fulling desires existed in a "desire utility machine" (or DUM) if it entailed killing one conscious person who only had 100 desires? The DUM would ensure that there were never any conflicts or thwarting of any desires since they would all be "playing nicely" alone in their own "corners" completely fulfilled at a mechanical level.<br /><br />Basically I ask, because you seem to want to say at critical moments that you "actually" care about the brute fact of some moral entanglement in reality even if it brings you no satisfaction (like something that happens after you die). I'm not really sure what you could mean by that. You can say that you "actually" care, but can you tell us why any of us *should* care that differs in any way from Carrier's answer? His answer seems to be that in the meantime when we care about a future we won't live to see, we experience the satisfaction of that concern up until we die and that this satisfaction is better than the alternative.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14479224236264150172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101896362709274025.post-48783477688280261702011-05-03T23:29:37.987-07:002011-05-03T23:29:37.987-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14479224236264150172noreply@blogger.com