"You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling..." — Tom Storm

Contrast:

I ought to of shot that dog myself, George. I shouldn't ought to of let no stranger shoot my dog.

One ought have the strength to do the deed out of compassion.

For instance, for a Heidegger the ‘self’ is defined as an interaction with a world. — Joshs

Brilliant Joshs. Yes, you are correct. The seemingly opposing frameworks are, in fact, what is causing a disjunction in this discussion. Now consider this, that even if I use the Objectivist framework - which is to say the traditional, Rationalist school understanding of self that is I, the being apart from you with an independent conscious awareness - the understanding that individuals conglomerate and form communities within which standards, values, traditions, auspices, and norms are shared between and influence one another, does not in any way negate the original, Rationalist framework of I. You see, it's a false dichotomy to have only one, or only the other. The two are compatible. I am an independent rational mind capable of choosing my own courses of actions, and I am also suspended within a vast network of people all influencing eachother. That's the reason we're bumping into so many issues: because one side of this debate is thinking in binary terms, while I have been thinking holistic, Gestalt terms. You following me?

One ought have the strength to do the deed out of compassion. — Banno

I wonder what Garrett's position is on compassion.

I wonder what Garrett's position is on compassion. — Tom Storm

I put it in the "feelings" category. It's not an aspect of ethical reasoning. But, it can serve as a means to ignite moral reasoning, or motivate one to assess the misfortunes of another in the pursuit of a proper course of action. That's about all I have on that one.

Thanks.

it's a false dichotomy to have only one, or only the other. The two are compatible. I am an independent rational mind capable of choosing my own courses of actions, and I am also suspended within a vast network of people all influencing eachother. T — Garrett Travers

My favorite psychologist is a fellow by the name of George Kelly, who many consider to be the founder of cognitive therapy. In his approach , all of our motives and interests are united via one fundamental desire , which is to make sense of our experience of a world which is flowingly changing from one minute to the next. Negative feelings like anxiety, anger and fear are the expressions of a failure to make sense of things , they the current or impending experience of chaos and confusion. Our rational aims involve anticipating events in as far reaching a way as possible by construing replicative patterns in the flux. This goal critically depends on other people, because they are the richest sources of new experience in our lives.

Loving relationships are about a bond of mutual sharing and creative inspiration, which is the ultimate form of anticipatory sense making. Thus, individual happiness is inherently other-centered and other-dependent. Rational choice is driven by motives which are inherently socially oriented in that personal satisfaction depends on construing harmonious patterns in experience. We love others for the same reason that we love ourselves , and do for others for the same reason that we do for ourselves. We are always ‘selfish’ for the sake of a knowing embrace of the world.


The key here is that we can only thrive with others to the extent we can empathize with them , by seeing the likenesses between them and us. So the key issue that ethics has to contend with isn’t the good of the individual vs the good of the group, but how to expand one’s circle of friends by discovering likenesses and commonalities where there appeared to be none.

Again, I understand that interpersonal harmony is a critical element to both ethics, as well as psychological well being, but you are resigning yourself to a singular view of ethics, predicated exclusively on the negative emotions attendant upon neglect, ostracism, incelibacy and all other manner bad things that happen to people to produce such emotion. These are not ethical deliberations you are presenting. I might draw your attention to another of Kelly's theories, that of Personal Construct Theory. He postulated that most people develop throughout the course of their lives a condition he called the naive scientist. The naive scientist is distinguished in his/her character by the limited lens through which he/she views the world as the result of built up negative emotions one accrues through the years. This limited lens of vision is clouded by desires to fulfill that which he/she missed out on in life, or was too neglected to be offered, as well as to bring those desires to other people. It is a unitary lens, or construct that he/she views the world through, and it is not sufficient to either face, or address the coming vicissitudes intrinsic to life. I would refrain from allowing such a limted assessment of ethics dominate your deliberations. There is a reason there are so many ethical theories, and none of them are solely predicated on others. It is a metter individuality vs others, it is a matter of individuality, as well as others in accordance with the particular circumstance at hand.

One ought have the strength to do the deed out of compassion. — Banno

I'm guessing you aren't familiar with the illustrious Colonel Kurtz?

The film is a tedious, pompous, self-absorbed attempt to excuse reprehensible behaviour as just part of human nature. An insincere, self-excusing cultural mea culpa. Or something like that.

:razz:

It's a 20th century take on the classic by Joseph Conrad, who was Polish and had nothing to mea culpa for.

And it's a masterpiece.

Values, on the other hand, emerge out of societies through time and are dissemnitated onto individuals, by which their particular ethical inclinations will be informed. — Garrett Travers

This formulation is strikingly different from Rand's epistemology. She celebrates a selfishness of ranking what is worthwhile for oneself above other kinds of 'moral' evaluation. Her novels are fawning adorations of such qualities. Charity and compassion are depicted as subtractions from virtue, not simply elective values to be affirmed or not.

This formulation is strikingly different from Rand's epistemology. She celebrates a selfishness of ranking what is worthwhile for oneself above other kinds of 'moral' evaluation. Her novels are fawning adorations of such qualities. Charity and compassion are depicted as subtractions from virtue, not simply elective values to be affirmed or not. — Paine

That's actually what we all do, cognitively, if given the freedom. Values themselves are not simply an individual phenomenon, but individuals can and do certainly choose their values based upon their inclinations, or application of reason, or even on emotional whim. Rand would have you do so exclusively on reason, but she doesn't make the claim that humans aren't susceptible to the values disseminated on given individuals by society.
Charity is looked upon as something you can choose to do if you wish, but it isn't a virtue. Virtues are core principles that lead to you fulfilling your own values. But, I would say that if you value seeing greater fortune enjoyed by others, then charity wouldn't be a detraction. However, I would probably ask the question why is that you enjoy seeing greater fortune out of others? Is it rational, or is it predicated on a sense of duty? Just as a point of clarification.
Also, I'm not a Randian. I just simply don't disregard her epistemology, as it is comprehensive and sophisticated.

But is there any good we do when nobody is looking other than to make ourselves feel good? — TiredThinker

Making ourselves feel good inherently benefits others because it innately optimizes us to be fit to care for another being; in turn keeping the human race in motion. The crux of how the human species has survived so long is through a series of good conduct.

Depressed people for instance, often harm love ones around them without intent unless they self-isolate, which is also self-defeatist to them and that is why we strive to mitigate the effects of depression.

We can take this a step farther, and I pose you to present a scenario that consists of intentionally bad conduct where the harm does not exceed the optimization.

Depressed people are less good? Not sure if I understand your argument. Pete Davidson certainly hasn't made the world better if that's your point? Lol

@TiredThinker – In light of reading the thread discussion thus far, I'll elaborate on my initial post ...

Instrumental conduct seeks to satisfy the self's appetites and as expediently – at the lowest "cost" – as possible (~ "doing well").

Ethical conduct, on the other hand, cultivates the self's 'habits of (nonzero-sum) cohabitating with other selves in a (shared / conflicted) commons, always already against the background of a historical society nested in – entangled with – natural ecology, by adaptively exercising such habits (~ "doing good").

The benefits to the Ethical Self are intrinsic (re: thriving) in contrast to those of the Instrumental Self which are extrinsic (re: surviving); the latter is necessary, of course, but force-multiplied, so to speak, by the former is sufficient for "The Good Life" – yet the craven likes of Randian sophistry (e.g. rationalizing "cowgirl" neoliberalism) are predicated on an inversion of these priorities and/or Instrumental conduct at the expense of Ethical conduct (e.g. "rugged individualism" über alles).

Depressed people are less good? Not sure if I understand your argument. — TiredThinker

Depression is only problematic to the extent it is an indifference or apathy to the wellness of self, thereby diminishing the importance of self-interest and self-care. Reduced or absent self-care usually leads to an indifference or numbness to self-harm. Self-harming always harms the loved ones to you; which I suspect is why people 'self-isolate' as a protective mechanism. Not wanting to inflict themselves on others.

I think most depression is more about the world than the self. Self worth would fall under esteem and confidence. I think plenty of artists can be deeply depressed and narcissistic.