I must disagree somewhat with your underlying principle. One who acts justly, no matter how much he sacrifices of himself for the benefit of others, is still motivated by personal benefit; indeed, he is acting justly because of his motivation to better his situation. In fact all human actions come from that motivation, including the second person in your example. The only difference is the first guy is wise to the golden rule.

All interesting discussions. This is great! This is philosophy...yay! Oh, I've so missed you Panda Man...and 'sup Q.

Anywho...

Very interesting, though I think the first line is something that should be further developed...the other few lines play too much along in the field of perception, something I'm not very keen on. For when you think about it, isn't loving one's self based on perception? Could not a serial killer love their self as much as a humanitarian? And I only bring this up because I like to refer to serial killer Melvin Rees (a jazz musician during the 40's) who was an existentialist and used existentialism as a defense during his trial. He lost of course, but his story (like so many other rotten people...such as Hitler...who was also a fan of Nietzsche's...but that's another story) is an example of how one can behave justly in regards to their own subject (his self), but not as just or as "respectful" in regards to other subjects (humanity).

And yeah, I didn't mean the philosophy works objectively, just subjectively...it's a valid and justified philosophy, a truth to be sure of, but that doesn't mean it's a TRUTH.

I love the first line, but again it plays in the field of perception. But it is an example of where perception does come into play in recognizing one's self. We often look at others for a comparison. And as far as society is concerned...you should really read Nietzsche. He has an interesting essay concerning society and the corruption of youth. How it's easier to mold society when you corrupt the thoughts of the young. For example, ever notice how philosophy seems to be a forgotten subject these days, specifically in schools? A philosopher once told me that the reason philosophy is rarely spoken of in highschool is because it's harder to teach children who can think freely.

And subsequently, fuck Galileo! What about Copernicus (I think I spelled that right), look what he did. Galileo just played on Copernicus' idea that the sun was the center of the universe, but the reason we don't credit Copernicus is much is because he actually retracted his theory to avoid persecution! FEAR THE CHURCH! muwahahahahahaha!

But yes, good talks all around. What say you?

How is this disagreement? The entire strength of the argument for righteous behavior, whose decline in popularity is directly linked to foregoing of this argument in favor of the peception that all righteousness is self-inflicted misery, is that the person who is just will be personally happier than the one who is unjust. To use Socrates' most extreme example, if one man is falsely accused of a crime, imprisoned, kept in a cell without contacts or luxuries, and a second man, who actually committed the crime, is elevated and praised by society, raised on a pedestal and given wealth and fame, even then, the first man is happier than the second. The capacity for happiness stemming from external sources is much lower than that stemming from internal sources; satisfaction with oneself is more important than satisfaction with one's current position.


There is, of course, the danger in this, as Eighteen correctly pointed out, that one can perceive what is the right action to be very different from what society perceives it to be. This, however, doesn't really come into the philosophy that I am advocating. The state can condone slavery. An individual can condone murder and theft. Even the greatest philosophers of ages past that agreed on the underlying concept of happiness stemming from right action could not agreed on a codex of right action. Every holy book disagrees with the others. Yet the nuances can be up to the individual; my point is simply the foundation of the philosophy, not it's actual practice. Someone who believes it is morally right, and a sacred duty to kill anyone wearing a red shirt will, unfortunately, only find happiness doing this. Society will react to protect itself. The ultimate goal is for society and the individual to adapt to each other, which, of course, they have been doing for tens of thousands of years now, hence why people who find it a righteous duty to kill anyone in a red shirt are so few. Most people find it self-evident that it is wrong to hurt or kill another without justification, although what constitutes adequate justification is another loophole. People have proudly and happily faced the death sentence for everything from fighting invading opressors to blowing up ice cream shops full of children, because it was what they thought was the only right thing to do.

No one claimed the truth was clean and pretty.

*applauds* Brava!

Nicely put.

Dark

Did Washington feel bad about his crime. If a war had a diffrent outcome perhaps Bendict Arnold would have been a hero. If I capture Osama and become an American hero will I really care if I commited a crime in the eyes of some Muslims. Doesnt our society promote the nice guys finish last theme. Isnt persuction and imprisionment confirmation of what some indivduals deem to be acting justly. If you always help your neibhor and then one day ask him for help and he says no are you likely to help him again. Society always confirms a just action. Internaly generated happiness does not exist the framework for what makes one happy is internal but actual happiness stems from the external enviroment be the behavior just or wicked there is no diffrence in the source of the happiness.

First of all, what is just?

Second, the first situation, with the "just" one being happy isnt completely true. What if the just one that ended up in jail begins to question his actions and beliefs and ends up hating himself while the one that got off with commiting the crime ends up believing that what he did was the right way to go and being completely content with everything that had transpired?

Also since different people think differently, this rule of just will make one happier than power/fame/wealth/position (earthly goods) is absurd. It is for no one to say that everyone will be more happy internally than externally.

To maso, how do desires make you happy. Desiring something means that you dont have it already therefore you are lacking, you are incomplete. Not to mention you have no idea how you would act/feel in a situation void of wants or desires.

Sic and burning bush, i like a lot of what youve been saying.

Just as a side note Socrates exteme example makes no sense at all. The first man, having lived his whole life justly, then intern does not recieve justice. I am to believe he will be happy nope sorry Socrates your a genious and all but I think you missed the mark on this one. First man would need some rational to except his "fate". maybe second man has many children he needs to feed and first man has none something like that but there is no way first man is happy about his current state of affairs with out rationlizeing them. So although Socrates gave this example as a representation of happiness steming from a just lifestyle he intern missed the actual cause of happiness. Which is an individual interprtation of circumstances influnced by sociatal rules

Dark

I can see how some aspects of modern philisophy would lead to self destruction although not for lack of just behavior. Consider being a Nihilst whom excepts the concept of eternal recurrence. To have faith in nothing but the idea that all life is meaningless and yet life wishes to have the same meaningless existence reacur endlessly yikes.

I don't know, I just wanted attention.

For some people (those who don't believe in he golden rule), those two are one in the same.

Well, it can never be wholly proven, like any social theory, but the argument you put forth doesn't work. The theory states that as a natural cause of the human condition, a just man will be happier than an unjust man whatsoever other circumstances they are put under. You can't really rebut this with, "Well, what if he's not?" Anymore than the theory of gravity is countered by, "Well, what if objects don't attract one another with a force proportionate to their mass?"

Nor can you make a blanket claim that it is absurd. It is observable that people that behave unjustly, from what we must suppose is even their own viewpoint, but are rewarded monetarily still often come to unhappy ends. Even leaving out the realm of crime, there are multitudes of cases of men and women who earn vast financial fortunes, wealth, and fame, and then retreat to self-imposed exile or commit suicide. By simply studying the behavior of those around you, you will pretty much always find that those who express a conviction in the justness of their lifestyle, and are self-satisfied with their moral behavior, will continue to do so, and are never really, at least in any case that I've seen, destroyed emotionally or spiritually by harship.

Ultimately, though, it's kind of expected that those who don't put a high regard on moral behavior will not think much of the theory. They will just continue to insist that those who do are in reality just as unhappy as they are.

vice versa and you got the same counter argument.

as long as you define just behavior as those actions deemed to be just by society at the time the action is committed (see salem, mass. and Germany 1930-40)

your example of the "unjust" people being unhappy seems to be like a just person saying look see see they are unhappy I was right all along. I argue that an unjust person if never "caught" by society would be just as happy as a just person.

the idea of acting in a just manner, and just causes are in my opionin tools to pervert the moral conceous we all have. how else can we go to war or an exwcutioner do his job?

in reality a person is equaly as able to attain happiness threw just or unjust behavior. the sustanablity of that happinees is mitgated by societies exceptance or rejection of that behavior.

And yet I very clearly did no such thing. Which I suppose shows the level of effort you're putting into this conversation.


Nor can you claim a blank canvas lacking in evidence; study the lives of famous individuals and compare them based on philosophies espoused. People that deride morality and righteous behavior have a high frequency of dying of alcohol poisoning in gutters. Atheists in particular have a very poor life expectancy. Those who espouse higher ideals, striving for the perfection of righteous behavior as defined by the holy book of whichever, do not either directly or indirectly kill themselves and die miserable, cold, and alone. At worst they tend to face a martyr's death, usually with great calm, dignity, and quiet.

Nor is either theory untestable on a personal scale. I invite you to simply try spending a few months striving to do rightly at all things. I've personally found greater peace and self-acceptance in this approach than I have ever before had in my life.

Iam not sure what your getting at but my statment sets a criteria for what "just" and "righteous" behavior is. In realty following iany "holy" book is a perversion of our own moral compass (again I point out Salem, MA and Germany of the 30's as examples there are countless more). When you follow this path you are simply following the rules setforth by society overall they are the rules which are a preceveid benfit to the society at that moment in time.

The rest of your post in regards to alcholism and suicide ect has little to do with behaving "righteously" or "justly". An atheist has the same capacity to behave in a "righteous" or "just" manner as a good "god fearing" person how then can the example you used for atheist be aplicable to the debate of "righteousness"? Atheaist lack "faith" in a supreme being you could draw the conclusion that a lack of such faith impacts the life excpectancy of these individuals but that has nothing to do with righteous behavior. For that matter how does it apply to the discussion in regards to modern philisophy and there founders as they too have the same capacity to behave in your descibed manner irregardless of there level of "faith".

Seems to me that your examples have more to do with faith then with the lifestyle choices one makes. So is happiness found through faith or behavior choices?

I'm long since past the point where I find delight in circular arguments where I shout the exact same things to people repeatedly. If you want to go back and actually read what the fuck I wrote, we can move on.

i see where you keep saying the samething. do you see where iam asking questions?