<<<"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 enough 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.”
I would like to simplify this as much as possible and then refocus, as it seems a little tangential to our core argument. If, as I have proposed, we have an absolute moral principle as a referent “idea pattern,” then any attempt to apply that principle in our practical experiences would be a subjective judgment on the part of the individual. To some degree or other in relative terms such a judgment would reference the absolute principle. The application could actually be based on poor judgment or a misapplication of the idea. Having the absolute moral principle does not provide a default mechanism for absolute good conduct, as far as I know. It simply offers direction.
”So some "Absolute Entity" established an "idea pattern" in which some of the ideas are perfect ideas?”
I am not sure I can answer this question. It is confusing to me. It seems to put me in the position of answering for an “Absolute Entity.”
”Did the Absolute Entity use thought to determine what ideas to stick in there?”
My understanding of what you meant by an Absolute Entity would be the “All Knowing” kind. In this case thought as we use the process would not be an exact fit. If you meant some kind of "Absolute Entity" that comes with limitations, then I don't get the meaning.
”Did this entity also insert imperfect and faulty ideas into this realm?”
Good question. I don’t know how falsehood and imperfections work except that they are troublesome to deal with. I definitely experience the phenomenon on a daily basis and it seems to be an endemic part of Earthly experience.
”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?”
I like the term I used yesterday, “enmeshment.” I don’t see it as a simple grabbing on. It is a life long endeavor and a rich and complicated process of experiencing, assimilating and analyzing and synthesizing. However, I definitely think we should hold individuals responsible for their conduct (application of ideas). “Catching” ideas seems to be very individual . I like the “seek and ye shall find” philosophy of coming to know things. I like to think that I have some control over the level of knowledge and wisdom I am able to attain.
”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?
We don’t usually consider these people or situations healthy. My reference was to healthy competition...and I am not always a good judge of what is to be ultimately beneficial for others.
”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? “
I agreed that self interest was a variable that may be considered as having an impact on well being. In doing so, I considered it in light of a “whole picture.” In general, I consider the term to be somewhat vague and subject to contagion as; it can be applied in the sense of over coming adversaries to get what you want; it can be applied in a less gruesome format as in taking care of oneself irrespective of the effects you are having on others. It can also be applied with respect to having consideration for others. I am convinced, for example, that raising my children in a loving environment with the simple message that being a family means, in part, taking care of one another, and that this results in benefits to all concerned in the long run. That doesn’t mean that my children always get what they want on demand or that I do. This, I consider in the interests of all concerned. The same attitude can be extended to the community and the world at large. Getting what you want isn’t always what you need, nor is it always a contributor to being in a state of well-being.
My argument is that having a positive regard for the well being of one’s self and others is in the best interests of all. However, an argument could be made that if someone is interested in getting something that some one else wants, and the two parties are willing to engage in harmful or destructive behavior to achieve their goals, then this too could be seen as a focus on self interests. Since self interest may be looked at from such distinctly different and incompatible views, it should not be the focus of what constitutes a positive regard for well being of self and others; at least as it bears on this discussion.
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".
If you are going to interject items to your scenario that essentially changes the foundation laid for decision making, then we are having a different kind of dialogue here. An Abbot? Lets go back to your original decision. You will marry the girl and distance yourself from me as needed.
I am not suggesting any kind of score keeping for equality of “benefit.” I simply stated that the moral is to have a positive regard for your own well-being and the well being of others. If, in your judgment, it is clearly in everyone’s best interest for you to marry the girl, then that is what you should do with regard to your well being and hers. It would not contribute to my well-being to endorse a different outcome for the love triangle. The moral would guide you in your dealings with me as well. I may be disappointed, or even angry at the outcome. None of that stops you from having a positive regard for my condition and wish me well along the way. It also does not obligate you to make assure any particular benefit or level of benefits to me. Sometimes (most times) it is not easy. |
