[ExI] Morality is tied with Meta beliefs

Kevin H kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com
Tue Dec 18 20:16:04 UTC 2007

On Dec 18, 2007 9:17 AM, Stefan Pernar <stefan.pernar at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 16, 2007 11:29 PM, Kevin H <kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 16, 2007 2:06 PM, Stefan Pernar <stefan.pernar at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 16, 2007 4:57 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Dec 15, 2007 11:45 PM, Kevin H <kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 12/13/07, Stefan Pernar <stefan.pernar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  Moral behavior is the realization that existence is preferable
> > > > > > over non existence
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Preferable according to whom?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > According to the individual. For an in depth intuitive explanation
> > > please see here:
> > >
> > >
> > > http://rationalmorality.info/wiki/index.php?title=The_Moebius_Effect_%28book%29_understanding_choices
> > >
> >
> > Well, I'll just tell you my view.  It is only concrete human beings,
> > like you and me, who make evaluations.  So given that many people disagree
> > on the worth of existence, I'd suggest that your premise is flawed.
> >
> Thanks for the feedback. I argue that those who are not in favour of
> existence are being irrational. My reason is that those that are against
> their own existence would consequently have to remove themselves from
> existence ( i.e. commit suicide) or remove others from existence (i.e.
> kill others), who could alternatively become helpfully allies. I see no
> practical purpose whatsoever in killing others unless it is the only way to
> prevent them from killing even more others.
Okay, I have two counterarguments.  First, your argument is question
begging.  If not being in favor of existence was rational, then it would
make sense that killing yourself or killing others would be rational too.
You're assuming what you're trying prove: that being against existence is
irrational.  But despite all of this, you're beginning to evaluate another
person's evaluation.  First, as your basic premise, you assume that
existence is preferable to non-existence.  Now when I say that some people
don't prefer existence over non-existence, you then say they're not being
rational.  Yet, if it was the case that non-existence was preferable to
existence, then such a person could accuse you of irrationality by the same
form of argument that you accuse them.

But the second counterargument is the more serious.  In the book *Beyond
Good and Evil* Nietzsche goes to great lengths to criticize the belief in
opposite values.  Here you pose the evaluation of existence in only two
modes: favor or disfavor.  If you favor existence, then you say you can base
an entire ethical system on it; but if you disfavor existence, you conclude
that such a person is or ought to be suicidal or homicidal.  Yet, I suggest
other than two modes of evaluation of existence, there's an entire spectrum
of evaluations on existence.  For example: happiness, boredom, dread,
horror, anguish, anxiety, pleasure, expectation, excitement, and so on--all
of these are possible evaluations of existence.  And these modes can't be
reduced to your simplistic dichotomy.

> Could you please give me an example where I do that? I would like to make
> sure that is not the case.
 Well, at this point you do it in this premise that we're speaking of.  You
say that existence *is* preferable to non-existence, not that existence is
subject to people's evaluations, but that this evaluation is the correct one
irregardless of evaluative standpoint.

Hopefully this is helpful for your edification.

Best regards,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20071218/c6306ff3/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list