Ranking
Originally Posted by BlakNWyte View Post
Even if you can't find immediate or practical justifications for it, not caring about the environment 100 years from now is still an awfully selfish and egotistical thing to do. If you plan on having any kids and aren't a sociopath, you probably won't want to see them suffer from the problems you and me left them.

No. It's not an egotistical thing. It's an egoistical thing. And egoism is both practical and rational.
And I highly doubt (if I ever have a kid) that my kid will be affected by pollution so much that it effects their health and wellbeing.

Originally Posted by BlakNWyte View Post
It reminds me of the issue someone else brought up in discussion once, about not giving a crap about anyone in poverty or starving (in fact was wishing them dead out of 'convenience', if i recall), or am I taking this issue a wrong direction?

Tis a different thing.
[doc]
Is egoism really a practical and rational view to adopt? What if everyone was an egoist? Hello starving, dying family of six, I think I will have this delicious steak as I am feeling a little bit hungry at the moment. Crawl on your blistering knees to the next man down the road and maybe you'll get some left overs.

And there you see selfishness arrives at practical, logical problems even for someone totally void of ethics.
Originally Posted by BlakNWyte View Post
Is egoism really a practical and rational view to adopt? What if everyone was an egoist? Hello starving, dying family of six, I think I will have this delicious steak as I am feeling a little bit hungry at the moment. Crawl on your blistering knees to the next man down the road and maybe you'll get some left overs.

Egoism dictates that one does whatever is in his self interest to survive. The act of working with others to gain food is essential to the survival of the individual, ergo, it is egoistical.
Originally Posted by BlakNWyte View Post
And there you see selfishness arrives at practical, logical problems even for someone totally void of ethics.

Your misunderstanding of the concept of egoism proves nothing.
Don't presume I'm void of ethics either. I have done nothing that would possible lead you to believe that.

Summation; check your premises and hold your tongue.
[doc]
Originally Posted by Galt View Post
And I highly doubt (if I ever have a kid) that my kid will be affected by pollution so much that it effects their health and wellbeing.

I loled.

Because there isnt enough pollution to affect a kid already?
Originally Posted by Galt View Post
Egoism dictates that one does whatever is in his self interest to survive. The act of working with others to gain food is essential to the survival of the individual, ergo, it is egoistical.

and illogical, as it deprives the individuals you are working with of equality.


Working with others should be in the interest of the others as much as it is in the interest of the self, as it would thus ensure the continuation of the whole which the self is to rely on.

Originally Posted by Galt View Post
Your misunderstanding of the concept of egoism proves nothing.
Don't presume I'm void of ethics either. I have done nothing that would possible lead you to believe that.

Summation; check your premises and hold your tongue.

that is fairly presumptuous, given that you cannot be sure that you have received the full spirit of BnW's perspective in one little post.


Your instant assumption that he was or could have been referring to YOU as being void of morals or ethics speaks more of you than his assumed accusation might.

Let's say the most ethical and moral thing to do would be rationally take into consideration that we are a group consisting of individuals, most-to-all of whom are acting with self preservation and self interests. what, then, would the most logical and rational approach be?

A) act selfishly and care naught of others
B) Work with others to specifically forward your motives
C)Act selflessly and give completely of yourself to the others so that they may flourish, ergo you may flourish from them.
D) Work with others to generally forward the motives of all individuals collectively, while reserving time to focus on your own priorities, careful not to interfere with the priorities of others



If you didnt pick D, explain in fine detail, as to why that is logical and rational, to you.
SuicideDo, the Brewtal Drunken Immortal.
Originally Posted by Galt View Post
No. It's not an egotistical thing. It's an egoistical thing. And egoism is both practical and rational.
And I highly doubt (if I ever have a kid) that my kid will be affected by pollution so much that it effects their health and wellbeing.


Tis a different thing.


how can you know that?
we (thank god not me) are the 1st generation of mcdonalds fed up kids,how can you know what impact it has on your health in 20-30-40 years?

also i think of it this way,one major reason they don't use green energy,is because there is going to be left over oil,and they gotta sell that oil ;|
Originally Posted by SuicideDo View Post
and illogical, as it deprives the individuals you are working with of equality.

Do explain. How exactly is working with people in order to achieve your values illogical? And how does doing so deprive them of equality? lol
Don't just say shit and expect it to fly.

Originally Posted by SuicideDo View Post
Working with others should be in the interest of the others as much as it is in the interest of the self, as it would thus ensure the continuation of the whole which the self is to rely on.

Of course it is. Which is why the individual works with the others in the first place. In order to acheive his goals.
Derp..?

Originally Posted by SuicideDo View Post
that is fairly presumptuous, given that you cannot be sure that you have received the full spirit of BnW's perspective in one little post.

Nay, not at all. He clearly misunderstands the meaning of egoism and the dichotomy between it and egotism. Thus, my first statement.
My second statement was directed at the following;
And there you see selfishness arrives at practical, logical problems even for someone totally void of ethics.

He inferenced that rational self interest (which I'm supporting) has practical and logical problems, even for people totally void of ethics. He added that last part in case I argued that I'm amoral. That shows that he has an inkling that I might be amoral.


Originally Posted by SuicideDo View Post
Your instant assumption that he was or could have been referring to YOU as being void of morals or ethics speaks more of you than his assumed accusation might.

Not at all. Once again, saying shit and expecting it to fly doesn't work.
Originally Posted by SuicideDo View Post
Let's say the most ethical and moral thing to do would be rationally take into consideration that we are a group consisting of individuals, most-to-all of whom are acting with self preservation and self interests. what, then, would the most logical and rational approach be?

A) act selfishly and care naught of others
B) Work with others to specifically forward your motives
C)Act selflessly and give completely of yourself to the others so that they may flourish, ergo you may flourish from them.
D) Work with others to generally forward the motives of all individuals collectively, while reserving time to focus on your own priorities, careful not to interfere with the priorities of others



If you didnt pick D, explain in fine detail, as to why that is logical and rational, to you.

B. James Rachels once wrote this "Each of us is intimately familiar with our own individual wants and needs. Moreover, each of us is uniquely placed to pursue those wants and needs effectively. At the same time, we know the desires and needs of others only imperfectly, and we are not well situated to pursue them. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that if we set out to be 'our brother's keeper,' we would often bungle the job and end up doing more mischief than good."

@Nikosefs; I don't claim to know that. I claim that it's more likely than not, that my children won't get fucked over due to pollution.
[doc]
Galt, there is this altruistic quality which is very important for human survival as species, and one which you and Oyster seem to lack. It's called courtesy.
I'm quite glad I lack any altruistic qualities. It means I've been doing everything right.
[doc]
Originally Posted by Galt View Post
I'm quite glad I lack any altruistic qualities. It means I've been doing everything right.

Hardly.
Altruism is essential for survival of social animals, especially ones that rely on society as heavily as humans. Why do you think it evolved? Many people before you have died for freedom of expression and speech out of their convictions, for example. Because of them, you now have free access to various information (Ayn's books being one example).