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

This ^

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

You're either trolling or you simply not given to moral introspection. Take your pick

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

I think I've made clear that I don't begrudge people pursuing their self-interest. I've simply pointed out that putting others self-interest ahead of one's own results in a better richer way to live. I don't even think that's controversial - I've rarely seen anybody praise somebody for promoting his self-interest, except maybe in the ugly realm of rightwing politics. Even there it's usually rationalized as really a benefit for others (he made a billion dollars producing a really good product!)

In any case, my claim is based on the premise that the unexamined life in not worth living. It is an existential claim, not a moral one. My experience is that self-interested people live unexamined lives and are childish, shallow, and boring. For all I know they may be more moral than others and provide a great benefit to society on a utilitarian level. That's the theory of capitalism at any rate, which is why capitalism tend to produce childish people. My position doesn't exclude working for a future or carrying on the usual business of life. Rather it is an attitude that comes from self-examination the puts this into context.

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. Some Jewish inmates in concentration camps collaborated with the Nazis in order to get an extra piece of bread or to stay alive one more day. An ugly action. (The current movie Son of Saul is about this). But I refuse to morally denounce those people since I can't imagine the horror of their situation, a situation not of their own making. 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 decision they did not make. Now contrast that with the Nazi victimizers and we have a different calculation.

If you google "altruism" you'll find that the common definition includes both, but I'll just use a synonym instead. — Sapientia

Nothing wrong with using google for factual matters, but for a philosophical discussion, it's lacking. Altruism is a moral system. I think I've made clear I'm not making a moral claim per se. I don't think those who put their interest first are immoral, and have even pointed out that I wouldn't morally judge anybody whose survival is at stake for trying to survive. I might criticize his courage but not his morality. Put another way, I might praise the courage of somebody who puts the interests of other before himself even when his survival is at stake. That's not an uncommon feeling we have all the time.

Putting the interests of others ahead of one's own is a better way to live. It isn't a more moral way to live. So I don't considerate my formulation (which is just the Apostle Paul's in fact) altruism at all.

Yeh, I got that. But that's not necessarily true, nor true for everyone, all the time, regardless of context. Hence, I am replying that it's better for some, but not others. — Sapientia

I think it is true at all times for all people; it's just not possible when competition for resources is such that people struggle to survive. I don't blame people for the meanness of their existence when survival is at stake (I've been there within the confines of western economics); but I do recognize it is mean.

Are you actually denying that, and like poor Agustino engaging in the romantic view that struggle is ennobling? I hope not.

Comfort is the cause of immorality. — Agustino

I'm glad you agree we should disabuse the rich of their comfort for their own good.

My main points are that these traditional values aren't set in stone, that there are exceptions/counterexamples, that deviation from these values doesn't necessarily mean that one is worse off, and that much of this is a subjective and relative matter. — Sapientia

My view isn't traditional at all and I'm not invoking any traditional moral view. I don't think that putting the interests of others is noble, or altruistic, or gets you to heaven. I thinks it's a more excellent way to live, conducive to the examined life. In contrast, a self-serving life seems totally unexamined to me.

My interest here is existential, not moral, per say. Or rather, a morality that derives from an existential evaluation of what it means to have a meaningful life. I honestly feel sorry for self-involved people even as they rub me the wrong way.

Eastern European peasants are some of the most moral (and happy!) people I have ever met. A struggle for food, within reasonable limits, is good. — Agustino

Thank you Mr. Pastoral Romantic.

I'm glad you've arranged your life to struggle for food. Wait, you haven't.

It is available to many others, both past and present. If you read Aristotle (ancient source), and Macintyre (modern) you will see i — Agustino

You mean you've read Aristotle! That is such a rare scholarly achievement. I'll have to look up this Aristotle fellow.

It's altruistic by definition. — Sapientia

No, it's a practice. Altruism is a belief.

I'm not arguing that putting the interests of others ahead of one's own is noble or altruistic. I am saying it's a better way to live. It generates calmness and clarity and maturity. Those who are always out to get something for themselves act like children. They are comical, if not absurd. Their life is unexamined.

In a pinch, with survival on the line, we all act that way (or better put who can blame somebody for acting that way). But that's hardly a life worth living.

As to being a subjective judgment, it's certainly a judgment and it arises out of my life, but the OP asks for a judgment, so I'm not going to apologize for that.

But there is such a why. If you do not see it, you do not see it. Maybe some of us do see it; you shouldn't take the limits of your vision as the limits of the world — Agustino

The claim of special knowledge unavailable to others, and a knowledge that privileges the knower in a self-serving way. A classic rightwing meme

It's not immoral, it's just an unpleasant way to live. Narcissists tend to be miserable unhappy people. Giving really is better than receiving. Putting others interests ahead of one's own really is a more excellent way to live.

This all assumes access to the necessities of life in the first place, and not a life and death competition for resources, as capitalism tends to promote. When people are trying to survive all morality goes out the window, and it's understandable that it does.

What makes you think that I care if they are "right-wing" or "left-wing" — Agustino

Because you denied they were rightwing, and you keep promoting a typical vapid rightwing agenda

I didn't know we were talking about "the Right" in this thread man... I think you made a mistake, you should move the conversation to the other thread :p — Agustino

Pretending your views aren't rightwing won't help you here, boy.

Amazing thread — Πετροκότσυφας

I'd almost conclude that Agustino is trolling, but Poe's Law makes it impossible to tell

All through history it worked. Adultery was, in most societies, illegal under most conditions, for most of history. You cannot justify it not working simply because there's a gap in historical time when it's not happening. It will come back, fear not. — Agustino

Maybe in The Handmaiden's Tale, which I suspect you would consider utopia. It must be some solace to you that ISIS and the Taliban are on your side.

In any case, the delusions of the Right become more elaborate the closer it gets to demographic extinction.

Okay, agreed. I never said ALL adultery should be illegal. In an open marriage adultery should be perfectly legal since both partners agree and no one is harmed. BUT!! In the case of closed marriages, people are greatly harmed by their partner's adultery. Hence laws need to be implemented to prevent, and if not, to punish those who decide to become harmful elements of society. — Agustino

That's why we have divorce laws - so adults can end relationships and go forward in life.

Criminalizing personal relationships is about as dumb an idea there is -- which is why it failed and we decriminalized it. In short, we already tried this nonsense. It didn't work.

Nostalgia and politics is always a toxic brew, especially when it's calling upon purported Uebermenschen from the past (that never was). Why am I not surprised Agustino is steeped in it.

Immoral acts should be criminal (even though currently they may not be) - that is why the law exists, as an approximation for morality. Otherwise why would beating one's children be illegal? The justification is clearly because such an act is immoral. — Agustino

No it's not. The legislation of morality is a leftover from an earlier age. Modern legal theory is that the purpose of law is to prevent people from harming others, not from being "immoral." Sometimes there is a overlap - most people think murder is immoral in general. Often there is not - most people don't think it's immoral to drive through a red light by accident, but it's still a crime.

In any case, the legislation of morality (especially personal sexual morality) has led to more so many problems that most states have stopped doing it. For instance, adultery is no longer illegal in any state I know about because it's so easy to accuse somebody of it, whether true or not, and the remedy is so simple for those who don't want an adulterous spouse - they can divorce him. Criminalizing adulterous serves no purpose except pandering to prudes.

How do you explain Marxism's total hate for the family then? Most of what socialism is has evolved from Marxism afterall. — Agustino

If you're so intellectually lazy you can't even read a Wikipedia entry on how socialism's origins predate Marxism, and how it would obviously be more accurate to say socialism led to Marxism, at least you should forebear exposing your laziness in public.

But watch - you'll continue with this idiotic meme despite the facts. It's what conservatives do.

Finally, communism has been achieved. We all shag our sisters, live in free love, and have the same lack of resources that everyone else has. — Agustino

This level of knownothingism really can't get much lower.

Hitler's policies implied a lot of governmental control over the economy - at least in terms of economics, he was clearly not laissez faire. — Agustino

And so this makes him a socialist?

Jesus man. Words mean nothing to conservatives

Yes, because unlike you, many of the other Leftists here are willing to be rational and discuss this issue openly. You just want to impose your views. I'm going to stop addressing your posts until you bring in some real content. Thanks for whatever participation you could offer to the thread so far Landru. But I don't think it helps either of us to continue our discussion - you obviously have an extremist view thinking that the right is always evil and wrong, and, while I respect you and your view, I would kindly ask you not to impose this on me. — Agustino

Once you expose the rightwing memes, the next gambit is this: "You're mean on me"

I'm going to keep exposing your memes regardless, making you look like the fool you are

↪Landru Guide Us It's so easy to be a leftist - all you have to do is scream XYZ meme to everything your opponents say. Because that is how intellectual discussions have to be carried out when you don't have any real argument — Agustino

I'm not aware of any "leftist" who does this but me, regrettably. It's the only way to deal with conservatives and block their bizarre and dishonest way of framing issues.

So stay hopeful. I'm sure you'll find a lot of progressives who will actually think your memes are real arguments and foolishly rebut them with facts, allowing you to go on and on and on with one discredited meme after the next.

A lie often repeated will soon start to be believed. Said Hitler. Seems like you are keen on applying his tactic — Agustino

And we have Godwin liftoff. Agustino - you've got the memo!

No I don't. Fundamental rights are given by each state in particular. There are no rights beyond the state. A man by birth has no more rights than a tiger has. — Agustino

Fancy lingo all in the service of combating "leftists" from stopping persecution of gays. A noble cause indeed.

Ok, so show me where. All of us have big mouths, but let's see, can we walk the talk as well? — Agustino

The back track meme. Conservatives post a statement, then contradict it, and when pointed out, say they never said it. Even though it's sitting there in a prior post. You can also call this the Nathan Thurm meme.

Hitler was a socialist — Agustino

Straight from the Breitbart meme machine.

Now you're reduced to the reverso-meme, talking the hard right ideology of Nazism, and pretending it's crypto-leftist. I love the smell of desperation in the morning.

And you wonder why thinking people never take anything a conservative says seriously.

My bad.

Where have I said that I discriminate against gays in that post? Nowhere. I simply said that those who wish to build communities without homosexuals should be respected, and we can help them achieve this, because we have nothing against homosexuals, and we can treat them as first class citizens... This is doing good for both - respecting the freedom of both. — Agustino

This is another conservative trope: say something and then say you didn't say it, looping back over and over again.

You defended the right of oppressive regimes to discriminate and bemoaned interference by goodgoody liberals in trying to stop them. You called this, amazingly, a "fundamental right".

So stop pretending. It's clear you just don't like gays, and probably other minorities, and have hit upon the idea of noninterference with oppressive regimes (my that is so important!) as a justification.

Isn't it odd that of all the problems of the world, including the vast oppression of minorities and the poor by the rich, Agustino has decided the the most important issue for him is defending the right of oppressive regimes to discriminate against gays. Now that's a noble cause.

↪Landru Guide Us No, I think your analogy simply doesn't hold. There's no comparison between conservatives, many of whom are just normal people like me and you, and thus hold no power of life and death over you, and slaveowners and their slaves. Slaveowners could do whatever they wanted to their slaves. If you think conservatives can do whatever they want to you, then I suggest you seek the help of a medical professional. — Agustino

No, conservatism is fueled by wealthy oppressors, intent on exploiting others. They are pathological.

The conservative underclass are either fools, duped by the memes of the rich, or they are pernicious racists who want to harm other.

In any case, the whole purpose of conservatism is to exploit others and enrich the rich - kind of like slave owners.

What are you talking about... slaves by definition cannot expect the respect of the slaveholder, regardless of whether they call him God or devil. — Agustino

Whoosh! Right over your head!

Well if this is the case - notice you have broken the limit and have gone into hate speech - you cannot demand or expect that any conservative behave nicely towards you. Because it would be like a Westerner behaving nicely to a Jihadist who wants to kill him... nonsense. — Agustino

So slaves can't expect the respect of slaveholder is they call them criminal and evil.

I like your style of oppression!

Where have I said that I discriminate against gays in that post? Nowhere. I simply said that those who wish to build communities without homosexuals should be respected, and we can help them achieve this, because we have nothing against homosexuals, and we can treat them as first class citizens... This is doing good for both - respecting the freedom of both. — Agustino

And that's pathological It's the Krystalnacht mentality of the Nazis.

Just be honest and admit you hate and fear gays. Get it over with. You'll feel better.

But surely you have to recognise that this must be prejudice... you can't possibly claim that millions of conservatives are all evil and hateful people who want to oppress others... it's just so unfair. — Agustino

Yes, I can say without contradiction that all conservatives are evil. Conservatives are pathological and hate the other. Eschew it before it consumes you.

But nice distraction from the issue, since you were losing. Poor put-upon conservatives. How do they survive in this hostile land of ours?

↪Landru Guide Us Ok, if nobody says that, then why enforce such a value? — Agustino

You need to pay attention to what you say, but that's asking a lot of the right.

Nazism was based on a racial theory which claimed that the Jewish race was INHERENTLY inferior, AND EVIL. The theory I presented above doesn't claim that homosexuals are INHERENTLY inferior, AND EVIL. See the difference? It merely claims that homosexuals should be helped to live under regimes which favor their disposition. — Agustino

No, I don't. Hatred of peoples' condition is a sickness. Claiming discrimination against Jews is bad, but not against gays, is borderline pathological.

I'm glad you've exposed your ugly homophobic agenda.

Who says they should in all cases? — Agustino

Nobody, so this is a false dilemma. Another conservative strategy for avoiding discussing real issues.