Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The only way to test if an observation is true is to try to find an exception. Show me an instance where conscience doesn't need a justification to hurt someone and I'll show you you're wrong.
|
I can give you a 'justification' that your changed conditions don't remove: Doing X because it will allow me to get what I want, and what I want is far more important to me than the acceptable amount of harm that X will cause person Y.
Lessans thinks he can remove the three justifications of self-preservation, retaliation, and expectation of blame, but does nothing to remove the justification of rational self-interest. |
There is nothing evil about self-interest. |
I didn't say it was evil. I said it is a justification that can lead to harm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
In fact, the law of self-preservation justifies this.
|
No it doesn't. I'm not talking about situations where self-interest is pursued to stay alive, but where it is pursued at the expense of the welfare of others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The only time self-interest is a bad thing is when it doesn't care who gets hurt in the process of trying to getting ahead and will step on anyone who gets in the way. That is ruthless and is 100% prevented in the new world.
|
Black and white thinking. I am not talking about a complete pathological disregard for the welfare of others, but simply a preference for some good for oneself at the expense of some harm to another.
This is neither self-preservation, retaliation, or anticipation of blame, so your new world does nothing at all to remove this justification. Dumbass. |
I would have had a conversation with you until you called me Dumbass. You've lost it Spacemonkey because you don't like his claim about the eyes. I have no interest in talking you. Leave!