The only true dilemma is why shouldn't I act only in accordance with my whims? — Wosret

It is certainly a valid question, and an important question, but why a dilemma?

A dilemma is a decision that is hard to make.

I don't find it hard to decide on the 'whim' question at all. I am confident that my acting solely on my whims would be catastrophic for me and for everyone that I care about.

Do you really find it to be a dilemma?

The only true dilemma is why shouldn't I act only in accordance with my whims? If truth and morality are man made, and not objective, but merely someone else's arbitrary impositions on me, for ultimately selfish, deceitful, and or antiquated values. If it's all motivated, power struggles, identity politics, and tribalistic allegiances, then why shouldn't I behave only in accordance with my own preferences and benefits? The only real objection to that could be that it wouldn't work, that no one is skilled enough in manipulation or deception to get away with it, but that can be reduced to the lack of certainty, and fear of
failure involved in any undertaking. It isn't obviously impossible. What could be holding them back other than fear, slavery, and attachment?

Why shouldn't I just take everything I want from everyone in every moment? — Wosret

You do not take just everything you want from everyone every moment, and you dont' do the other things you question why ought not be doing them, because:

1. Morality exists
2. It is not man-made, but innate to man and other animals
3. You can't break the moral code you have

There is no "reasoning" out morality. It is not something negotiable. It has been borne out of survival advantage, it is a mutation that governs behaviour, and it is highly successful over those societies with individuals with no morality.

Morality is part of practical reasonableness, although morality has not been created by reason, but by evolutionary forces.

You don't have to avoid personal benefits, they just shouldn't be so important that you sacrifice everything for them in pursuit, and entirely irrelevant to the truth.

I already agreed with you from the beginning, you don't need to manufacturer conflict.

Desire, and compromise, problems for everyone, and you simply lack self-awareness if you believe otherwise.

1. Morality exists
2. It is not man-made, but innate to man and other animals
3. You can't break the moral code you have — szardosszemagad

1 is true, but 2 and 3 aren't. We aren't just born moral, and don't have to learn it, and strive for it. This is clearly not the case. What do you figure when you see someone that is immoral? Mutant? Every time?

We aren't just born moral, and don't have to learn it, and strive for it. This is clearly not the case. What do you figure when you see someone that is immoral? Mutant? Every time? — Wosret

Yes, but once you've learned it, it's very hard to unlearn it. It's like trying to rewrite your personality from scratch. Can't be done. You can only really tinker with what you have after a certain age. So, you're moral because it hurts not to be.

As I admitted from the beginning, it's the truth that hurts. Perhaps it is more what has been seen cannot be unseen. "Psychopaths" and other "dark personalities" are marked by their excessive denial, and lies. They just never admit to fault, or admit that what they did counts as that wrong thing, they use subterfuge doublespeak, and grandiosity. They use their language for manipulation, rather than truth.

The lord requires a contrite heart.

Well, yes, being immoral doesn't hurt them. If someone gave you or me a drug that suppressed this moral pain, I have no doubt we would do whatever we could get away with that benefited us.

If we numbed ourselves, we would lose track of the truth, by silencing the guide, and wander aimlessly in a land of delusion.

A psychopath's truth is very clear to them. It's just built on different foundations to ours. Maybe you're numb to their truth and wandering aimlessly in moral delusion. That's what they would say anyhow.

On top of that, most people have a psychopathic shadow lurking not far underneath the surface, but it takes some form of authority (or maybe extreme event) to bring it out so they can offload moral responsibility and not feel the pain we're talking about. Milgram experiments, Eichmann, etc.

How do you get 'dilemma' out of 'desire'?

entirely irrelevant to the truth — Wosret

I think anything to do with the self is relevant to your post. I tried to show you that, without eliminating the self from the equation, we can still reject the proposal to ''take everything from everyone''. Afterall, the self stands to gain by being selfless, as paradoxical as that sounds. Thus there's a good reason for not ''taking everything from everyone''.

Between wanting stuff and the truth.

The truth is eternity unless now.

It is the world I find myself in. I qualified if you could get away with it. This question was posed in the republic I believe it was (one of Plato's dialogues), one of the discussants suggests that if one were to find a ring that made one invisible, and one could get away with whatever they wanted while maintaining their reputation, then it is desirable to do so, and most people would do so. If morality is just prudence, then it indeed is for the weak and incompetent. — Wosret

Invisible rings don't protect you from infrared cameras, don't provide alibis, and can be found during search warrants.

Would things change if everyone had invisible rings?

A psychopath's truth is very clear to them. — Baden

No, I don't think this follows at all. Clinical psychological practice illustrates very clearly that a psychopath is self-deceived to a much greater degree than most people, and engages in actions they think will bring them satisfaction but which never do.

And the old mythological understanding of this phenomenon is also true. In the past, psychopathy was understood to be synonymous with demonic possession, which involves the loss of true autonomy and a clear understanding of the world - it involves acting according to another's interests (the demon) while you think you're acting according to your own.

This is very closely related both with Plato's "lie in the soul" and with the idea of borrowed whims and desires that I was talking with Wosret about earlier.

On top of that, most people have a psychopathic shadow lurking not far underneath the surface — Baden

Yes, no doubt that many people are capable of doing immoral things.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside, but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and every impurity. In the same way, you appear to be righteous on the outside, but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ sins. You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape the sentence of hell?

Because of this, I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify, and others you will flog in your synagogues and persecute in town after town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all these things will come upon this generation. — Matthew 23:27-36

Aren't people saying the same thing today, about, for example, the Holocaust? They do exactly that - they say if only we had lived during Hitler's time, we would never have been partners with him in the murder of the Jews. But of course, by saying that, they almost confirm they would have been partners with him, for just like him, they are not aware of their own violence.

The only true dilemma is why shouldn't I act only in accordance with my whims? If truth and morality are man made, and not objective, but merely someone else's arbitrary impositions on me, for ultimately selfish, deceitful, and or antiquated values. If it's all motivated, power struggles, identity politics, and tribalistic allegiances, then why shouldn't I behave only in accordance with my own preferences and benefits? —

You already are. Your 'preferences' also include your 'moral vision' for the world. Moral imposition is not just authority imposing itself upon you - it's also you deciding for yourself how you and others ought act, and imposing that upon the world (in particular ways). You already do this. How would you act when seeing someone helpless being assaulted? Perhaps step in, call the police? You yourself have a moral vision for how the world ought be, and you impose this upon yourself and others all the time. You are already acting according to your whims.

Why shouldn't I just take everything I want from everyone in every moment? —

Because that isn't your whim. Your moral whims are already aligned towards not doing this. It's you yourself that is personally deciding that you and others ought not act this way.

Everyone is personally always-already their own source of what is right and wrong. You can't escape not deciding your own moral values. Even external moral authority must first be vetted by your own judgment before it's accepted. One must first decide for themselves to choose to believe in God, and decide that his word on morality is correct before coming under his authority. You can't help but being your own source of what is right and what is wrong.

It's up to you to decide what is right and wrong. Only you can answer "why ought I not do x?"

And even if someone typed out a convincing argument, it would only be convincing because you personally decided that it was. You can't escape your own judgment. So just own it, your own judgment is the source of what is right and wrong, you decide.

Either everything you've just said is only what you would like to be true, what you'd prefer to believe, it is coincidentally both what you'd prefer, but also true, or it is truth completely, and entirely regardless of what you'd prefer to be true. In the first case, which you seem to be suggesting, there is no such thing as truth at all. In the second case, my preferences coinciding with the truth is a happy accident, which is swell and all, but in the third case is when the truth becomes more difficult. When it isn't how you'd prefer, and allowing your preferences to determine you beliefs is called wishful thinking, self-deception, and things of that nature.

Only in the case of lies, do your preferences determine what's true.

1. Morality exists
2. It is not man-made, but innate to man and other animals
3. You can't break the moral code you have
— szardosszemagad

1 is true, but 2 and 3 aren't. We aren't just born moral, and don't have to learn it, and strive for it. This is clearly not the case. What do you figure when you see someone that is immoral? Mutant? Every time? — Wosret

You believe that? Everyone has the right to his or her own false beliefs. You have yours.

If you did some research, what I presented has much support in psych experiments. You believe a different truth, which I find to be false, a complete disaster of a weltanschauung. Fine, that's your privilege. But you have to show SOME evidence that my proposition is false.

If you insist that I show that my proposition has support, fine, but you'll have to wait a while while I gather up evidence.

I posed the objection, which is a long standing one to the idea that morality is innate, and based in feeling, and that is that even if every single human agreed about what it was, it would be arbitrary -- it also means that if the majority felt something to be moral or immoral, it would be impossible for them to be mistaken, and divergence would be simply a different sense, a different feeling, that would be just as arbitrary.

It is to say, that people cannot be wrong about their feelings of right and wrong, and thus there is no room for discussion (as they could not even be genuinely persuaded in any sense, as their feelings would be innate, and unmovable).

We have many innate qualities, and traits. We aren't blank slates, or without natures and constraints, but getting to the truth of any matter (even moral ones) requires experience, reason, and judgment.

Either everything you've just said is only what you would like to be true, what you'd prefer to believe, it is coincidentally both what you'd prefer, but also true, or it is truth completely, and entirely regardless of what you'd prefer to be true. In the first case, which you seem to be suggesting, there is no such thing as truth at all. In the second case, my preferences coinciding with the truth is a happy accident, which is swell and all, but in the third case is when the truth becomes more difficult. When it isn't how you'd prefer, and allowing your preferences to determine you beliefs is called wishful thinking, self-deception, and things of that nature. — Wosret

I see my own judgment as the objective source of moral facts.

Can you be wrong?

Why shouldn't I just take everything I want from everyone in every moment? — Wosret

I'll offer you an argument.

1) Happiness is good, unhappiness is bad. (proved by the fact that everyone wants happiness and no-one wants unhappiness)
2) What is good is commendable. (because to say that something is good is to commend it)
3) If something is commendable, we ought to do our best to bring it about. (because merely to commend something and not try to bring it about would be illogical)
4) Therefore we have an obligation to try to make people happy.
5) One can waive an obligation to oneself, but it is logically impossible to waive an obligation to someone else.
6) Therefore the obligation to make oneself happy can be waived, but the obligation to make others happy cannot.
7) Therefore one is more obligated to try to make other people happy than to make oneself happy.
8) Therefore, rather than taking everything one wants from other people, one ought to put the happiness of others before one's own happiness.

I should mention, in case anyone is wondering, that for the whole of my 65 years I have consistently failed to get anywhere near this high standard, and I confidently expect this to continue.

1 is false, mania is excessive happiness, and causes impulsiveness, and reduced quality. Bi-polar is the only mental illness actually correlated with creativity, because one is super productive during manic periods, but destructive, separating the wheat from the chafe during depressive periods. Same with taking a lot of sweet drugs, one is extra creative, but destroyer of worlds on the down turn. One feels much much better than the other, but that has little to do with how good they are. Excess in either direction, or one without the other is unhealthy.

2. As long as commending something doesn't make it good, then okay.

3. No necessarily true, I can commend qualities, skills, appearances, activities in others without then feeling it necessary to get myself involved with their being brought about. One isn't so multifaceted.

4 is a nonsequitur, from 3. Need something more than that, without spiraling into an absurdly full schedule.

5 I do six logically impossible things before breakfast. Plus this is asserted here, without explanation. Why is waiving obligations work like that?

6 Assertio.

7 Unestablished

8 Mushy, and unshown.

1 is false, mania is excessive happiness, and causes impulsiveness, and reduced quality. Bi-polar is the only mental illness actually correlated with creativity, because one is super productive during manic periods, but destructive, separating the wheat from the chafe during depressive periods. Same with taking a lot of sweet drugs, one is extra creative, but destroyer of worlds on the down turn. One feels much much better than the other, but that has little to do with how good they are. Excess in either direction, or one without the other is unhealthy. — Wosret

Your implied argument is:
There are unhealthy conditions which involve happiness.
Therefore happiness is not good.

Not a valid argument. The happiness part of these conditions is still good, it's just outweighed by the other parts.

3. No necessarily true, I can commend qualities, skills, appearances, activities in others without then feeling it necessary to get myself involved with their being brought about. — Wosret

If you could help, you ought to. If you would hinder, you ought not.

4 is a nonsequitur, from 3. Need something more than that, without spiraling into an absurdly full schedule. — Wosret

By 'an absurdly full schedule' I take it you mean that you want to keep some time for yourself? That's quite natural, but it isn't a reply to the argument.

5 Why is waiving obligations work like that? — Wosret

If X owes you money, you can say to X 'that's okay, don't bother to pay it', and that lets X off paying it. If anyone but you says to X 'that's okay, don't bother paying Wosret', it doesn't let X off. That's just how obligations work.

I think 6 follows from 5, 7 follows from 6 and 8 from 7.

No it isnt that some unhealth states involve happiness, its that excessive happiness itself generates them, and if this itself is possible then happiness isnt paramount.

You need to do more than assert the oughts and ought nots. Give reasons.

Thats how debts work that others have to me, which isnt the same thing as an obligation to oneself.

No it isnt that some unhealth states involve happiness, its that excessive happiness itself generates them, and if this itself is possible then happiness isnt paramount. — Wosret

I didn't say happiness was paramount, I said it was good. I accept that in some cases it may not be paramount. My argument doesn't need it to be. Even if excessive happiness does cause these things, that doesn't mean happiness itself is not good, nor does it mean that there aren't cases of simple happiness where there are no negating factors.

You need to do more than assert the oughts and ought nots. Give reasons. — Wosret

I don't just assert. I introduced 'ought' in step 3, where I stated that it was illogical to commend something and then not actively try to bring it about if you are able to. If you're not in a position to do something to bring it about, then of course there is no obligation on you to do so, which covers your point about commending "qualities, skills, appearances, activities in others". In most such cases you will not be in a position to do more than commend those people, but in cases where you are, it would be illogical not to do more.

There is a conceptual line between fact and value. I cross this line in step 1, by claiming that happiness (fact) is good (value). By the time we get to step 3 and introduce 'ought', it's already too late to object. IMO, even 'good' is morally compelling.

Thats how debts work that others have to me, which isnt the same thing as an obligation to oneself. — Wosret

The only difference I can see between a debt or obligation to oneself and a debt or obligation to someone else is that one can waive the first but not the second. What other difference is there?