There's a lot of misinformation around. I trust the WHO statistics that I provided, rather than Hanover's university studies :)
I do admit that Hanover brought up some information which does put in question some of my claims. Is that bad? Not really, no. I don't want to prove my point on this matter - there's no proving as there's too much uncertainties involved - but merely offering you different perspectives :) — Agustino
Why don't you want to prove your point?I don't want to prove my point on this matter — Agustino
and note that the article I cited performed the same DALY analysis as WHO and achieved very different results — Hanover
Because data is necessarily biased, and "proving" a point is pretty much impossible. Offering alternatives is what is possible. I have reasons to believe what I wrote, which I could outline, but no way to prove that I am right beyond reasonable doubt.Why don't you want to prove your point? — Hanover
To the specific question of whether those in poverty are more depressed than those not in poverty in the US, the answer is clearly that they are, with a rate double those not in poverty. http://www.gallup.com/poll/158417/poverty-comes-depression-illness.aspx — Hanover
If you google "altruism" you'll find that the common definition includes both, but I'll just use a synonym instead. — Sapientia
The only part that I'm rejecting as false is your claim that it's true at all times for all people. (That is, "To be selfless is to live a better life" or something similarly worded to that effect).
I understand and acknowledge that people struggling to survive aren't likely to prioritise morality. The starving child that steals a loaf of bread from a relatively well-off baker is excused in my book. But, again, a sophisticated view will take context into consideration. Whether or not an act typically considered to be immoral is excusable given the circumstances will depend upon those circumstances. The struggle to survive typically won't excuse rape, for example. — Sapientia
But I refuse to morally denounce those people since I can't imagine the horror of their situation. I can judge them as cowards or as unempathetic or or as dangerous to others. But not immoral. Nobody should morally judge others who find themselves in extremis for reasons not of their own making. — Landru Guide Us
You should denounce them - a traitor is a traitor. There is no excuse for immoral behavior. Probably I would be a traitor too, if I was in their shoes. But there's no excuse for me either. What is wrong, is wrong. — Agustino
All of this is just to point out two things (1) you've done no research and have misstated all the relevant facts related to your argument, and (2) poverty does not lead to morality, happiness, and a good, solid life.
Poverty creates all sorts of challenges, many of which lead to failed relationships, drug and alcohol abuse, crime, violence, teenage pregnancy, reduced education, depression, and general hopelessness. There may be a certain vacuousness to the lives of the rich and famous, but no one really believes that those lives are more difficult than those residing in public housing. — Hanover
You're either trolling or you simply not given to moral introspection. Take your pick — Landru Guide Us
No I am given to moral introspection. But look Landru. If I sell my wife in slavery in order to save my life, I have still done something immoral. — Agustino
You have no idea what you would do when your life is threatened by somebody with power over you. It's intellectual absurd to claim otherwise. You will do what you do based on where you are in life as you face a horrible situation not of your own making. I would call somebody who sold his wife into slavery at pain of death cowardly or less heroic than somebody who didn't (I think it's curious that this is exactly what Abraham did, whether you are aware of that or not). But not immoral. That's especially true if you lived to do something about it, rather than just got yourself killed and have your wife sold into slavery anyway. That's stupid (but also not immoral). I would save the charge of immorality for the person forcing the choice on you. He's the immoral one. — Landru Guide Us
There is no difference Landru. It's still a failure to live up to my moral standards. I know I won't be able to in those circumstances, but that's because Im a coward, and I admit to it... How can there be a difference? Does being forced to make a decision make it different? Does my life being threatened make it different? What is it that makes it different? — Agustino
Yeah, well, there we have it. If your moral system can't tell the difference between a Nazi and a Jewish victim struggling to survive the horrors of Nazism, it really isn't worth much. This is what happens once you go down the road of rightwing thinking — Landru Guide Us
You should denounce them - a traitor is a traitor. There is no excuse for immoral behavior. Probably I would be a traitor too, if I was in their shoes. But there's no excuse for me either. What is wrong, is wrong. — Agustino
One is committing immorality by forcing the other one to make a decision, the other one is committing immorality by sacrificing their family/friends for their own survival. Both are immoral, to different degrees, of course. — Agustino
Oh, one other thing: Happy New Year. — Bitter Crank
I think you are confusing an attitude with a system, and attempting to systematise an attitude, which is something that is impossible. I will explain later on in this post.There is also something wrong with a moral system that is rigidly black and white, and makes no exceptions. — Bitter Crank
A law cannot provide for an abnegation of the law. That has to do with an attitude of the law-giver and law-enforcer.a moral system worth it's salt will provide for failure. Nobody is perfect, everybody is quite flawed. Failure to live up to the law giver's high standards will be epidemic and endemic. The wise law giver recognizes this, and provides for forgiveness and reconciliation. — Bitter Crank
I assume your atheism resembles the psychological state of your pre-atheistic period of belief-- it must have been pretty grim — Bitter Crank
Since you, yourself, are going to fail at achieving perfection, you might as well install a system of forgiveness and mercy for yourself, and those who deal with. People will d-i-s-a-p-p-o-i-n-t you, I swear to Wotan. Get ready. — Bitter Crank
Putting the interests of others ahead of one's own is a better way to live. — Landru Guide Us
Finally, I am serious about not morally judging those who are put in situations where survival is at stake, no matter how ugly their actions. You seem ambivalent in that regard. — Landru Guide Us
Is there anything immoral with saying that my happiness is more important than your happiness? — darthbarracuda
But you haven't actually provided any evidence which supports that assertion, and I can think of possible counterexamples — Sapientia
One is committing immorality by forcing the other one to make a decision, the other one is committing immorality by sacrificing their family/friends for their own survival. Both are immoral, to different degrees, of course. — Agustino
Quite the contrary. — Agustino
But you haven't actually provided any evidence which supports that assertion, and I can think of possible counterexamples. I think that that claim is reflective of your own judgement, rather than a state of affairs. We would be closer to reaching an agreement if you would add a few qualifications to these sort of claims, but it seems that you're unwilling to do so, and your claims therefore remain fall. — Sapientia
I think I have. Regard narcissists like Trump or Lindsey Lohan. They are childish boring fools, and don't even know it. — Landru Guide Us
The unexamined life is not worth living. Are you actually going to disagree with that? — Landru Guide Us
That's a separate issue from whether or not being selfless is a better way to live, but yes, I do disagree with that, because I recognise that these things are not absolute. Your view is too simplistic. I for one happen to prefer the examined life, but that's just me, and doesn't say much. — Sapientia
As someone who is rather selfish, who tends to be interested in their own projects rather than the people around me (at least in a practical sense), I mostly agree with Landru in this instance. The thing about helping others is that it means the interests of at least two people (more, depending on the number of people who are helped) are fulfilled. It's more productive (in the sense of immediate events and relationships) than people doing their own thing. It forms connections and support which wouldn't be there in a world in which people only cared about themselves. — TheWillowOfDarkness
When helping others becomes a burden, when the individual is losing out on some important project because they are helping others, it's no longer in the helper's (perceived?) interest. — TheWillowOfDarkness
The problem is not the loss of a sacred right to have no responsibility, to be able to do anything (as egoism might have us believe), but rather the inability to do what matters a great deal to an individual. Characterising this as a mere "getting to do what you want" is a crass understatement of what's going on. What is actually at stake is the specific action someone feels they are meant to be doing. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Well, we have found the root of our disagreement. I assert unapologetically that it is part of the human condition that the unexamined life is not worth living.
I don't know how you can really disagree, since if one didn't examine their life, how would they know it's worth living. They have condemned themselves to Socrates' judgment by their failure to examine their life.
To me this is the basis of philosophy, and hence every philosophical question, including the morality of selfishness. So we'll have to leave it there. — Landru Guide Us
Your argument relies on the mistaken assumption that knowing whether or not one's life is worth living is necessary for a life to be worth living. — Sapientia
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.