"Yet the claims of their continuity are no problem for you"
That is correct to a degree. I have no reason to believe that anyone has a future. A bomb could go off in the moment. I do, however, hold with current convention in inferring that others remember a past just as I do, or at least that they believe they do, and that they construct their arguments and their lifestyle accordingly. It is a common belief that existence occurs in time and space. It is a belief that you hold as well, or you could neither logically nor sensibly posit an existence that transcends time and space.
"I mean that you may see some “thing” (event, experience, opportunity, etc) in the short term as beneficial, but if you can look at the whole picture you might see it as harmful or visa versa"
Well, if that was what you meant by "transcending specific experiences" then I find it an ordinary comment and one which all sane people would agree with.
"We don’t typically associate human self with inanimate objects, even if they once represented a human being (like a corpse or its decomposed elements)."
That was my point. If both of us agree that "life" is a necessary circumstance for "self interest" to manifest then it would seem spurious to claim that self interest could transcend that.
"You are inserting the word “advantage” and associating it as a synonym to the term “well-being"
I actually copied it as a definition, not a synonym. I wanted to be sure I understood your exact meaning. If it is not what you mean by self interest, then perhaps you would be kind enought to use the word which best conveys your meaning. You have previously used "best interests" as relating to an "ultimate self interest". You may intend a different meaning than the dictionary meaning when you refer to best or self or interest or advantage. Interest that had no "self" bias of any kind would of course not seek advantage, but I thought you had already agreed that self interest was subjective and biased and that this relates to the dictionary definition of "self interest" which I quoted in a past post.
"Oh cool, do I smell a challenge in that statement"
Not unless you are transcending your nose. <g>
"Using your words, I believe our moral opinions are based on an idea pattern established in the ether of "ideas" by an Absolute Entity."
So some "Absolute Entity" established an "idea pattern" in which some of the ideas are perfect ideas? Does that fairly state part of what you believe? Did the Absolute Entity use thought to determine what ideas to stick in there? Did this entity also insert imperfect and faulty ideas into this realm? When we get ideas are we creating them and thus responsible for the conduct which follows as a consequence, or do we just sort of catch the ideas that float by in the "idea ether" like buying a grab bag, and we hope to get some of the infallible ideas along with all of the pitiful crap?
"Most people that I have met know about good sportsmanship"
Some of the people whom I've met know about it.
"the wolves improve the health of the caribou herds through their predation"
Evolution. Making individuals extinct to save the group? That certainly isn't in the best interests of the dead individuals even though it might be in the best interests of some individuals. It is not treating individuals with "equal regard".
I don't find a precedent to speak of ethics apart from creatures capable of some rational awareness. I mean, how does one condemn or praise conduct which is reactionary and instinctive? But if you wish to speak of wolfish instincts as though they were moral principles of "equal regard for self and others" well...that is all right with me.
"As I have described the game is kept civil, each player benefits"
Well, that is blatant rationalization. Some people lose a game in the stock market, or in love, or in anything else, and they kill themselves because they find nothing left to suffer for. Who are you to say that is beneficial?
"The chess example I gave was a practical example but you are asking about a non-game type"
Just for the record: I thought the chess game was a frivolous example--a game is only a game. I tried to give your point a practical and meaningful setting.
"How is that having a positive regard for your own well being, or the well being of other people? You would simply be giving me something that I want but would likely result in misery."
If I tell you I love your girl then who are you to tell me that you wish to place your interests (and what you in your bias hope is her interest)...over mine? My "positive regard" for you is that you clear the Hell out of town so that I can get on with True Love. Your "positive regard" for me is to rationalize that your "subjective" self interest carries more weight than mine. How can you POSSIBLY have an equal regard for MY interests? Are you going to convene a grand jury everytime sombody eats an extra piece of cheese at a buffet?
"You would likely act accordingly and if you are involved with me at all, you would demonstrate a positive regard for my well being in your efforts to help me to accept this situation as in everyone’s best interests"
No, I would leave town and let you marry her. I am an Abbot. I would let you derive the "benefit' of feeling unworthy and guilty for the rest of your life. Because my vow of silence and my other vows are not equally important (to my mind) as your tortured score keeping of equality of "benefit". |
