On Dec 18, 2007 9:17 AM, Stefan Pernar <<a href="mailto:stefan.pernar@gmail.com">stefan.pernar@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Dec 16, 2007 11:29 PM, Kevin H <<a href="mailto:kevin.l.holmes@gmail.com" target="_blank">kevin.l.holmes@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="Ih2E3d"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>On Dec 16, 2007 2:06 PM, Stefan Pernar <<a href="mailto:stefan.pernar@gmail.com" target="_blank">stefan.pernar@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>On Dec 16, 2007 4:57 PM, Stefano Vaj <<a href="mailto:stefano.vaj@gmail.com" target="_blank">stefano.vaj@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>On Dec 15, 2007 11:45 PM, Kevin H <<a href="mailto:kevin.l.holmes@gmail.com" target="_blank">kevin.l.holmes@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/13/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Stefan Pernar</b> <<a href="mailto:stefan.pernar@gmail.com" target="_blank">stefan.pernar@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
<div>Moral behavior is the realization that existence is preferable over non existence</div></div></blockquote>
<div> </div></div></div>
<div>Preferable according to whom?</div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><div> <br>According to the individual. For an in depth intuitive explanation please see here:<br><br><a href="http://rationalmorality.info/wiki/index.php?title=The_Moebius_Effect_%28book%29_understanding_choices" target="_blank">
http://rationalmorality.info/wiki/index.php?title=The_Moebius_Effect_%28book%29_understanding_choices</a></div></div></blockquote></div><div><br>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.
</div></div></blockquote></div><div><br>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.
</div></div></blockquote><div>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.
<br><br>But the second counterargument is the more serious. In the book <i>Beyond Good and Evil</i> 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.
<br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">Could you please give me an example where I do that? I would like to make sure that is not the case.
<br></blockquote> Well, at this point you do it in this premise that we're speaking of. You say that existence <i>is</i> 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.
<br></div><br></div>Hopefully this is helpful for your edification.<br><br>Best regards,<br><br><i>Kevin</i><br>