You continue to make the mistake of assuming that you can deduce the answer from pure reason. If you wish to connect the concept of a social contract with social relations, you have to start with the first principles of law: we are mortal, we require food and water, we require families, and we require shelter for ourselves and our families. We cannot escape the human condition, no human can escape those facts through reason alone, and that is the divine law to which Aquinas refers. That is the necessary precondition on which Hobbes defined the modern social contract, and it is the necessary precondition of the Lockean social contract we currently enjoy.

It cannot be considered in isolation from the human condition. Some consider it divine, and some object to that. The necessity of God's existence, or not, is rather a red herring in my opinion, that has persistently clouded the judgment of many much better minds. It is a reasonable inference, as we have no choice in the human condition, that we have equally no choice in our ability to reason that which is right and wrong. That is a condition which has been referred to as promulgation of the divine law for some 10 centuries. One may disagree with the inference. One cannot disagree with the human condition.

If that was all you said - making that pragmatic point - then of course I agree. But I don't see where you have argued that society is a natural phenomenon, or that nature - and so the cosmos - might have a proper non-contingent purpose. — apokrisis

Non-contingent purpose? I'm not sure what that even means. Whatever your answer is going to be..jargon-laden and all, what does that matter? Are you saying we have a necessary obligation to this non-contingent purpose?

But I justified that in detail. You are simply asserting that I'm wrong without countering my actual argument. — apokrisis

No, I saw no justification to "live hard". But if I'm missing something, feel free to copy and paste it.

So what I have objected to is the reductionist simplicity of your ethical conclusions and I have opposed them with the irreducible complexity of a holistic or systems view of existence. — apokrisis

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. All this really translates to is just deal with it.. And I already am.

My little joke. You exaggerate by calling life a burden. I say hey no, its a gift. But clearly - in saying that I am opposed to any transcendental framing of the human condition - I think the whole notion of life being "given" as either a burden or a gift is nonsensical in its invocation of some external telos. — apokrisis

It is already "given" as a burden de facto by having challenges that must be overcome. Every person, no matter what, has to deal. There is no invocation of external telos.

So do you understand the fallacy? It applies just as much to taking the undesirable in terms of feelings to be "the bad". — apokrisis

Yeah, you think we must follow what nature wants.. which is ludicrous on many fronts, not least of which is "knowing" what nature "wants"- its "necessary telos".. and then to believe that because we supposedly can "know" this telos, we should follow it.

As far as undesirable in terms of feelings to be "the bad".. Yeah, if the bad is not for the individual, then you have some bizarre impersonal view of the good at the expense of the individual. Of course the individual sees harm done to him/her as bad, whether or it strengthens the system or not.

It's quite clear what the non-contingent purpose is. I just told you what it is. In fact it predates Aquinas. The first to state it as the basis of society in formal terms was the codices of Justinian, in the 6th century AD, which is where the word 'justice' came from.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5983/5983-h/5983-h.htm#link2H_4_0003

Now I will explain the point of this basis. All human law is contingent on the laws of nature. The famous example from Justinian happens to be, bees. If you keep a beehive, and a bee stings a neighbor, are you responsible? The answer is no. The bee is following the law of nature, and like uncaged birds, their flight is beyond human control. The laws of nature take precedence over all other law, bees are necessary for pollination, and so, a beekeeper is not responsible for others being stung by bees.

That is non-contingent purpose resulting in social relations based on the even older social contract defined by Socrates, and first transferred into legal terms by Cicero.

To remind you, this is the (false) dichotomy on which you got the OP started...

At this point of birth into a particular society, are the individuals truly their own person, or are the simply perpetuators of the social relations?

So your claim was either/or. Either we are truly our own person, or we are simply helpless perpetuators. No middle ground. No interaction. Just a dualism cashed out in the familiar way - a mechanical and mindless world vs the Romantic "other" of the transcendent self.

My reply - expressing the holistic systems point of view where nature is an immanent whole - was...

So you already dismiss the alternative that the social relations are the source of the personal individuation? The capable individual is what society in fact has in mind?

I've been perfectly happy to argue my end. Selfhood is inextricably intertwined with social being. Social being is inextricably intertwined with biological and then physical being. So yes, nature is divided, but still a whole. There is a unity of opposites that underpins everything in immanent fashion.

My organicism - in being semiotic - even recognises the distinct grades of autonomy of purpose or interests that then arise within this overall connectedness. So it does count that there are "accidents of mechanism", such as a hierarchy of codes - DNA, followed by neurons, followed by words, followed by numbers. Each is generally constrained by nature in terms of the laws of thermodynamics - the globalised imperative to entropify. Yet each is a level of mechanism for achieving negentropic autonomy - localised purpose, localised interests.

So within this naturalistic framework, it is possible to see how words made a difference to Homo sapiens - we did become self-representational individuals working within a sphere of social relations. And with numbers, we became scientific creatures, living within machine-like economic worlds.

Thus there is plenty about how we have become that can be questioned and criticised.

But my point is that I have a framework that makes sense of such an inquiry. It reflects the actual structure of reality. Whereas you are recycling the machine vs spirit dichotomy that divides the natural world towards two unreal conceptions of existence - the material world as being brutely mechanical and the mental world as being transcendentally "other". And no good ethics can come from a faulty model of reality.

I have to agree with apokrisis, and moreover, as :Locke said regarding his social contract:

The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.

So your claim was either/or. Either we are truly our own person, or we are simply helpless perpetuators. No middle ground. No interaction. Just a dualism cashed out in the familiar way - a mechanical and mindless world vs the Romantic "other" of the transcendent self. — apokrisis

But you keep overlooking the fact that I don't really believe there is an either or. Of course it is society and the individual- there cannot be a separation. It is not the origins or the fact of this intertwining of the two. Rather it is a stance or perspective to take on the situation. I am simply calling your idea secular Taoism. These naturalistic philosophies irk me for partly the same reason Stoicism irks me. It's the idea that the stance we take must be one of bear and grin it. Rather, the rebellious stance is not rejecting the intertwined nature of society and the individual, but sees the situation for the raw deal it can be. We are the maintenance crew.. we cannot become untethered from the situation, of course, but we do not have to grin and accept it. Rather, we can see it as the furtherance of the survival cause which we are a part of.. We are not separated from it, but we can seek an attitude of non-compliance. So to reiterate, we do not disagree that humans are a part of the system, but rather, our STANCE towards the system can be one where we preserve our dignity as people who understand the situation for what it is, do not flinch from it, and prevent it for future people. We do not have to be willing vessels of the system even though we must be a part of it while alive. It is a difference on perspective of the system, not a difference of metaphysical position.

Indeed Schopenhauer even thought we are a part of the system- all aspects of will. Schopenhauer's stance was one of rebellion- not just bear and grin it. As Thorongil and I pointed out, the will-denying hero in this conception will probably never accomplish his goal, but his stance here is what matters.

Very well, I will not distract you from your egocentricism further.

I. I. I, I. I.

Please excuse the intrusion. Other matters will be more important.

One of the nice things about being a pessimist is that you have nothing to lose if you're wrong.

These naturalistic philosophies irk me for partly the same reason Stoicism irks me. It's the idea that the stance we take must be one of bear and grin it. — schopenhauer1

Well I don't say that except to ridicule the idea that we have the choice implied.

Naturalism would be about accepting our natural condition as the necessary starting point for any personal meaning. It doesn't say we then have to accept the starting point as the place we stay. But it does encourage us to inquire into the reasons why nature is the way it is - which then tells us something about the reasonableness of our own further acceptances or departures as a matter of personal choice.

Rather, the rebellious stance is not rejecting the intertwined nature of society and the individual, but sees the situation for the raw deal it can be....It is a difference on perspective of the system, not a difference of metaphysical position. — schopenhauer1

It is a difference at the basic level. It relies on the claim that there is this mythical "we" who "exist" in ontically separate fashion. Whereas I am saying that "we" is a social and biological construction. Romanticism literally was an idea whose history can be traced through modern culture. You can see people constructing the image and then trying to live the part.

And it wasn't a wrong response in itself. It was quite natural in that it was the social construction of individuals stripped down to devote themselves creatively to abstractions - like being heroes on a battlefield or economic self-starters. This notion of the outsider, the rebel, the uncompliant, the one who resists out of personal dignity - its all a bunch of social imagery dedicated to the furtherance of the cause that is modern society. Everything you so "celebrate" is the script being handed out to today's maintenance crew. That's the irony.

We do not have to be willing vessels of the system even though we must be a part of it while alive. — schopenhauer1

And there you go. The transcendent bit that completes your dualistic metaphysics. They can do everything to you ... but break your will. You can have the ultimate revenge ... of not believing the bastards. The self is ultimately not part of the world. It can stand outside and pass its (admittedly impotent) judgement. And for the Romantic, that is what counts. The inalienability of the subjective. The helpless martyrdom becomes the very proof of the metaphysics. They could do everything to control your being ... but they couldn't force you not to suffer! :)

As Thorongil and I pointed out, the will-denying hero in this conception will probably never accomplish his goal, but his stance here is what matters. — schopenhauer1

Yep. I've read the book, seen the picture, heard the song. Impotence in the face of social conformism is not a sign of failure. Instead, it is the resulting degree of suffering that proves this metaphysics of the transcendent self right.

But it is bad metaphysics even if cathartic as light entertainment. Whereas naturalism supports a culture of self actualisation and positive psychology - the cultivation of the habits of potency, the ability to engage with the world in socially fruitful fashion.

One of the nice things about being a pessimist is that you have nothing to lose if you're wrong. — darthbarracuda

Yeah. You have already embraced failure. So one less thing to worry about I guess.

It is a difference at the basic level. It relies on the claim that there is this mythical "we" who "exist" in ontically separate fashion. Whereas I am saying that "we" is a social and biological construction. Romanticism literally was an idea whose history can be traced through modern culture. You can see people constructing the image and then trying to live the part. — apokrisis

This is kind of full of shit.. You are not above the fray.. You betray your own Romanticism- it's just of a different kind, "the reasonableness of the system". It's as if you drank the Kool-Aid Bateson et al was passing out and you went off the deep end.. turning the circularity in on itself.. Romanticizing Peirce.. You don't even know what you mean anymore except you don't like the sound of pessimism because its dark and scary to you.

And it wasn't a wrong response in itself. It was quite natural in that it was the social construction of individuals stripped down to devote themselves creatively to abstractions - like being heroes on a battlefield or economic self-starters. This notion of the outsider, the rebel, the uncompliant, the one who resists out of personal dignity - its all a bunch of social imagery dedicated to the furtherance of the cause that is modern society. Everything you so "celebrate" is the script being handed out to today's maintenance crew. That's the irony. — apokrisis

The double irony is the ironic fashion whereby you speak for some sort of reasonableness that you do not define.. All you have done is made an edifice that you call Romanticism and went full throttle. The maintenance crew is that which keeps itself going. I don't see how the scrip of the "uncompliant" who does not further the position would be of much benefit.. If anything, it gunks up the works. You even said that.. and then sleight of hand-like tried to say it will start again, thus diverting the attention. Clever, but diversionary.

And there you go. The transcendent bit that completes your dualistic metaphysics. They can do everything to you ... but break your will. You can have the ultimate revenge ... of not believing the bastards. The self is ultimately not part of the world. It can stand outside and pass its (admittedly impotent) judgement. And for the Romantic, that is what counts. The inalienability of the subjective. The helpless martyrdom becomes the very proof of the metaphysics. They could do everything to control your being ... but they couldn't force you not to suffer! :) — apokrisis

How is this even an argument? Calling it transcendent, Romantic, dualistic, does not prove it wrong. You haven't even shown how. I'd like to see you make an argument without simply throwing out labels and letting that be its own justification. You barely showed anything beyond the idea that the rebel stance is labeled as Romantic and transcendent, thus advancing nothing to dispel its efficacy in consolation against he existential situations of instrumentality, suffering, and dissatisfaction. By saying Positive Psychology, you show your own Romanticism- but this one is real.. The quixotic elixir of life.. Stoicism for the new age. More grin and bear it techniques..

But it is bad metaphysics even if cathartic as light entertainment. Whereas naturalism supports a culture of self actualisation and positive psychology - the cultivation of the habits of potency, the ability to engage with the world in socially fruitful fashion. — apokrisis

And here you go again.. Habits of potency, fruitful fashion.. all preloaded statements. That solves nothing of instrumentality.. we already do that in any task where we try to get better at achieving a goal. Getting better at achieving goals has nothing to do with the existential questions I have outlined. It is simply distracting, ignoring, or trying to replace the problem with an unrelated one in order to have something that can be more managed in place of one that cannot. This is not putting the problem front and center. Pessimism does this- it recognizes you don't need a solvable problem, as these were never solvable to begin with.

Now you're thinking more pessimistically!

This is kind of full of shit.. You are not above the fray.. You betray your own Romanticism- it's just of a different kind, "the reasonableness of the system". It's as if you drank the Kool-Aid Bateson et al was passing out and you went off the deep end.. turning the circularity in on itself.. Romanticizing Peirce.. You don't even know what you mean anymore except you don't like the sound of pessimism because its dark and scary to you. — schopenhauer1

So I'm suppose to mistake this for an argument? Blah, blah, blah, you're the real romantic, take that and no returns. ;)

I don't see how the scrip of the "uncompliant" who does not further the position would be of much benefit.. If anything, it gunks up the works. — schopenhauer1

It's not a problem if its just a phase. Toddlers can be very uncompliant. But we expect them to grow up. Same with teenagers. And on the whole, noncompliance is superficial - a hairstyle, a dress code, a collection of slogans.

There is nothing as restrictive on your freedom as being a punk, emo, hacktivist, gender fluid, or whatever. Genres are particularly intolerance of true difference. Again a familiar irony of modern life.

It's not a problem if its just a phase. Toddlers can be very uncompliant. But we expect them to grow up. Same with teenagers. And on the whole, noncompliance is superficial - a hairstyle, a dress code, a collection of slogans.

There is nothing as restrictive on your freedom as being a punk, emo, hacktivist, gender fluid, or whatever. Genres are particularly intolerance of true difference. Again a familiar irony of modern life. — apokrisis

You are ridiculous yet again. Here you go with your false dichotomies and naturalistic fallacy. You've been accused of it many a time, maybe you should actually take heed. To assume what we tend to do as a culture is what is right because it is what the culture expects us to do, is a circularity. I'm not sure if you care or know this.. It is also part of the naturalistic fallacy.

Unfortunately, since you can't really think outside the little box you made for yourself, you don't realize "rebelling" is not simply doing the "opposite" but rather the idea of not even considering it as the assumed position in the first place.

You're Brady (the bald guy) here.. Instead of the Bible, it is Systems theory.. The System speaks through apokrisis, apokrisis tells the world.. the prophet from Weeping Waters, Nebraska.. let us have a book of apokrisis!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYfuTlTiixA&list=PLX4_3lO6guPMS7R93Qq-pi8UrWHkdqo0b&index=36

You will interpret what you think right by appealing to some ideal version of social norms (first fallacy- no justification) and by what we already do (naturalistic fallacy), then make false accusations about dichotomies (strawman), and label interlocutors arguments as something perceived as negative (red herring).

To assume what we tend to do as a culture is what is right because it is what the culture expects us to do, is a circularity. — schopenhauer1

The logical presumption is that what a culture does must be pragmatically reasonable in some sense. It has to work in self perpetuating fashion. And therefore if as you claim, individuals are free to dissent. to be non-compliant, on the whole, individuals must be agreeing with the world they are collectively creating.

So if you actually apply logic to the situation, then cultures have to be doing something right. They are the expression of the collective behaviour of a lot of individuals who could instead dissent.

And this natural reasonableness is why you have to resort to extraordinary claims - like regular folk are all operating under some kind of illusion. If only they would open their eyes (like you) they would see its all a heaping pile of shit.

Of course I criticise the developed world's current cultural settings. I say they are focused on short-term gain at the expense of long-term costs. We have become entrained to the imperatives of fossil fuels in indeed quite a blind fashion. Oh if only the normies would open their eyes. :)

But that criticism accepts that the way things are must in some sense work for people - who after all, have some degree of choice. My worldview doesn't just say existence itself is meaninglessly shit. There is the very real possibility of living a life in positive fashion. We can all aim higher than consolation, catharsis, and other justifications for assuming attitudes of helplessness.

Unfortunately, since you can't really think outside the little box you made for yourself, you don't realize "rebelling" is not simply doing the "opposite" but rather the idea of not even considering it as the assumed position in the first place. — schopenhauer1

Sadly, your whole position is based on dichotomies of opposition, which is why your arguments turn dualistic. I am advocating dichotomies of the complementary - so yes, Taoism is one of the philosophies that gets that.

You want to divide the world up into opposing absolutes. The world being completely "the bad" is how you can - tragically/heroically - imagine yourself as the entrapped "good". The basic Romantic trope. Liberate me from this constraining world.

But I make the other case. There is no good and bad. There are instead only the complementary limits on being that seek their equilibrium. So at the level of human social being, those complementary limits on free action are the instincts towards competition and co-operation. Living well is doing both in the right way. Hit the balance and life feels great.

And the psycho-social sciences show that is the correct evolutionary view of course.

You're Brady (the bald guy) here.. Instead of the Bible, it is Systems theory.. — schopenhauer1

A quite fascinating glimpse inside your power fantasies. But isn't it odd that you are pleased by the triumph of evolutionary reasonableness in that clip?

You want to divide the world up into opposing absolutes. The world being completely "the bad" is how you can - tragically/heroically - imagine yourself as the entrapped "good". The basic Romantic trope. Liberate me from this constraining world. — apokrisis

I mean, this has been a major topic investigated by existentialists and phenomenologists. Levinas, for example, specifically analyzes transcendence as an attempt to escape.

You keep trying to nudge these phenomenal experiences out of the picture as if they're not important or relevant to the discussion. So what if the world isn't actually divided up into these absolutes? How is that relevant to how we ordinarily approach the world in everyday life (what we might call "nature")?

But of course I can go about things from a different angle. Hypothetically speaking, if you had such godlike powers, would you start life on Earth all over again? Would you try to prevent it from developing? None of your hand-waving now: if you were God, would you do it again? This thought experiment is intentionally made to put phenomenal value back on the drawing board.

But I make the other case. There is no good and bad. There are instead only the complementary limits on being that seek their equilibrium. So at the level of human social being, those complementary limits on free action are the instincts towards competition and co-operation. Living well is doing both in the right way. Hit the balance and life feels great. — apokrisis

First you say there is no good and bad, and then try to recommend a lifestyle of equilibrium (how incredibly novel! wow I never thought about that before...) that inevitably spirals back to hedonic satisfaction. Scienced-up taoism. Sounds great on paper!

So sure, you can trim your sails and tailor your life to equilibrium - until something inevitably disturbs this equilibrium in the form of accidents, pain, disease, aging, and death. You can tune a guitar only so much until the strings just break and the whole thing is fucked.

Schopenhauer1's (and others') point has been the absurdity of being forced to do this to begin with. The environmental and biological system we live in places constraints that, for a self-conscious, time-conscious being like us, can be coercive. Analyzing it objectively and removing any sort of anthropomorphism does not just magically woosh the oppression away, as if this knowledge correlates to calm tranquility in the face of danger. So yes, describing life in the textbook-manner style you prefer can be emotionless and passive, but life is not lived in this textbook-like manner (unless of course you are extraordinarily lucky or just blind). The biologist may recognize that death is the natural and eventual outcome of any biological system, but nevertheless retain a fear of it.

It's also helpful when you happened to get a lucky roll of the die. Far from being determined by reason, lives are dictated by chance and fortune. So you drew a comparatively good lot in life. At least have the decency to recognize when other people didn't and cannot raise themselves up to your unrealistic, dogmatic and coercive expectations.

A population of organisms (not just r-selected) is sustained by an implicit emphasis on the species rather than the individual. Individuality is tolerated only so long as it is beneficial to the survival of the species as as whole. As I'm sure you are aware, human's ability to "transcend the immanent" is an important part of existential and phenomenological analysis. Now that we are capable to reflecting upon our condition and the world at large, we can wonder whether we want to keep going. We can understand that individuality came from social interactions without making the mistake of valuing is less because of it. If we value individuality, and if this individuality puts us into conflict against the wider cosmic entropic "plan", then so be it. Maybe we were meant all along to go extinct. This rhymes well with Zapffe, Freud, Nietzsche and Unamuno's analysis of the tragedy of consciousness. As you said before elsewhere, the mind must find the right "balance" between seeing enough to survive but not too much to be overwhelmed. I'm obviously coming from the perspective that we see too much and that this inevitable disposition is the cause of the majority of our problems.

"Human existence is a penal colony; a sexually transmitted disease; a disappointment; nothing but suffering; “a sky-dive: out of a cunt into the grave”; a one-way ticket to the crematorium. “Nobody gets out of here alive”. Every day is a grim passage, a struggle through moments and hours of loneliness, boredom, emptiness, and self-loathing." — Colin Feltham

The sad thing is that the comparatively optimistic perspective you espouse inherently has to either ignore or forget about those like Mr. Feltham, myself, Schop1, Thorongil, and others who can't seem to figure out how to enjoy life like you seem to be able to. You play by nature's rules and you get to survive. You go rogue or fail to meet expectations and you're purged. And the train keep chugging.

You keep trying to nudge these phenomenal experiences out of the picture as if they're not important or relevant to the discussion. — darthbarracuda

But in fact I said that the phenomenology as I experience it is that pain and pleasure go together. They appear inextricably intertwined in everything I find meaningful. Sport, love, kids, work, study - its got to hurt or feel like an effort as part of it being rewarding and worthwhile.

So the phenomenology is irreducibly complex. And that is indeed the important and relevant fact in this discussion so far as I'm concerned.

Blah, blah. Etc, etc. — darthbarracuda

Sorry, I looked hard but couldn't discover any actual counter-arguments in the rest, just a lot of laughably lame ad homs.

I mean "scienced-up taoism"? In what world is that going to hurt?

Sorry, I looked hard but couldn't discover any actual counter-arguments in the rest, just a lot of laughably lame ad homs. — apokrisis

mkay, as I suspected you respond to nothing and redirect the blame onto others. Good job!

I responded to your phenomenology point by reminding you I posted a detailed argument on that which you have continued to ignore.

As to the rest of your post, it was your usual lament that I'm not taking your personal feelings seriously. But then this is a philosophy forum, not a mental health support forum.

Wait, what argument?

Wait, what argument? — darthbarracuda

http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/59160

So pessimism is based on the completely faulty notion of ending the pain inherent in living. But you can see how naturalism only wants to remove the accidental pain - so as to maximise the scope for purposive pain. And likewise, naturalism would want to remove accidental pleasures, to make pleasure properly purposive. — apokrisis

"Naturalism" is the buzzword you use to describe anything you personally advocate. It's not as if all naturalists automatically believe everything you do regarding politics and ethics.

And no, pessimism is not based on the desire to end all pain. It's focused on the possibility of ending all purpose-less pain. Give us a good reason why pain has to exist. If, for example, you could enter a hedonic machine that would give you pure enjoyment without fail - would you hook yourself up? Of course you would. Why stick around in a world of both pain and pleasure when you could experience a world of simply pleasure? If you would take an aspirin for a headache, why not take the hedonic experience machine for relieving the stress of life?

So this whole "you can't have the good without the bad" rhetoric only applies so long as you keep this crypto-theological notion that life, and humanity, is "supposed" to be some way. It's a pretty sneaky aesthetic.

I instead understand my nature because I can see why pleasure and pain are psychically joined at the hip. Perfection in the real world lies not in one reigning absolute, the other banished from the kingdom. Instead to flourish is to live with that exquisite balance where you thrash yourself up mountains (both literal and metaphoric) as living hard is living best. — apokrisis

That's it? Once again we have this sneaky aesthetic of the gritty survivor as a demonstration of your so-called naturalist ethics. Living hard is living best - but why? Certainly going to the supermarket is easier than growing your own food or hunting for meat. Guess you should stop going to the supermarket, since apparently living hard is living best...

Living creatures are almost always in a state of discomfort or stress. It's not enjoyable. It's tedious, annoying, frustrating and difficult. It's in the brief intermissions when you're able to relax, and in this relaxation you basically forget what it was like to go through the day. You mistake the intermission for the play.

It is also much easier to deal with life when you live it "again" through other people. Hence why so many people have children, those ultimately useless additions to the world. People like to see other people live life, so long as they don't have to live it themselves.

So why don't we stop beating around the bush and admit and agree on this: life was never meant to be enjoyable and it's childishly absurd to believe the universe was meant to make us happy or comfortable. It does not care for our well-being - we are given this responsibility from the genesis of our existence and it's a real pain in the ass. I didn't want this, and the irritating part is how people like you are so willing to hold a blindingly obvious double standard and ignore this fact. It's just as I've been saying from the beginning - affirmative morality is inherently aggressive and hypocritical, especially in regards to the edges of its domain.

It's just as I've been saying from the beginning - affirmative morality is inherently aggressive and hypocritical, especially in regards to the edges of its domain. — darthbarracuda

LOL. Says the guy who fantasises about pessimism having the responsibility, because there is the capability, of wiping humanity out with nukes.

So why don't we stop beating around the bush and admit and agree on this: life was never meant to be enjoyable and it's childishly absurd to believe the universe was meant to make us happy or comfortable. — darthbarracuda

You keep making claims I don't make. Everything winds up back with your personal neuroses.

LOL. Says the guy who fantasises about pessimism having the responsibility, because there is the capability, of wiping humanity out with nukes. — apokrisis

I mean, I am a consequentialist. I'm not exactly going to endorse paradoxical agent-centered restrictions.

I mean, I am a consequentialist. I'm not exactly going to endorse paradoxical agent-centered restrictions — darthbarracuda

That's terrific. But the said moral agent has to be actually rational, not neurotic, psychopathic, autistic, etc. Which in turn means the agent must have values that are "natural" under my definition of them.

False. A moral agent can be rational without having affirmative values, so long as they're willing to look beyond their irrational vital impulses.

Yeah. But only if they live in some other reality rather than this actual world of ours. So natural values are not abstract in the way that your affirmative values are. Again you are peddling the anti-naturalistic fallacy.

Nah, you're just missing the point by a mile. Oh well.