Great President Bush

[V_Translanka]

'Live & let live' could be interpreted as 'lend a helping hand'.

[Sentenal]

Suppose we follow Sentenal’s advice and spit on the rest of the world? Is that really in our national interest, like he says? No.

Sentenal would like to clarify.  I did not mean to spit on the rest of the world.  This is what I ment:  We let the rest of the world do its thing, unless it threatens us doing our thing.  Live and let live, as long as its mutual.  Thats not spitting on the rest of the world, thats doing what the rest of the world wants; less American envolvment.

Ie. isolationist, how America was before WWI. Is that what you mean?

Yes, although America didn't have as many intrests then as it does now.  So isolationist, but not as much as then, as we still have assets around the world, such as Israel.

[Lord J Esq]

We also have a transnational economy intertwined with nearly every country on Earth, vitally so with several dozen. Isolationism doctrine is a very coarse denial of what makes this country prosper. We must interact with the outside world, and so it becomes a question not of whether to make these interactions, but how to go about them.

[Leebot]

As I sometimes put it: When you boil it down, pleasure is pleasurable, and pain is painful. Every other action we take should derive from that.!

This is the central utilitarian guideline, and also its essential flaw. To whom does this doctrine apply? If we apply it to individuals, well, it just so happens that I'd probably feel pretty good about shooting Bill O'Reilly right now, but I'll bet you he wouldn't. Conversely, if we apply it to societies, then individuals on their own become worthless in the name of the greater good. To whom does this doctrine apply, for it to succeed in its intent?

The conflict between "do no harm" and "seek pleasure but avoid pain" rests on the fact that people's own definitions of pain and pleasure are often mutually exclusive from one another. (That's why I mentioned Paradise with a capital P in my little essay earlier; it implies a hypothetical state where no one's paradise treads on anyone else's.)

So how do we get around this minor problem, Mr. Guru of Time? Is the flaw with utilitarianism one that can be solved?

Easily! Just pretend you're the government and deny any evidence that there's a flaw at all!

...

Okay, seriously. The problem here comes with being shortsighted, again. In the end, if everybody gives weight to the pleasures of others, each person's individual pleasure gets even higher.

But then person A says: Wait! But I can get +1 Pleasure if I give person B +2 Pain! What have I got to lose? So, person A is at +1 overall happiness, person B at -2.

Then person B says: You know what? I can do that too! He even deserves it, the bastard. So, he goes right back and gives person A +2 pain, gaining +1 pleasure.

In the end, persons A and B are both at -1 overall happiness, and both probably wish that in retrospect this incident had never happened.

This is an oversimplification, but the message is valid: Generally, when you gain some pleasure at the expense of another, you gain less value than they lose, harming the sum happiness of humanity. Your behavior then encourages others to do the same back, and you end up becoming a victim as well.

Thus, if everyone puts themself first in the short-term, everyone ends up worse off in the long-term.

[Eriol]

Thus, if everyone puts themself first in the short-term, everyone ends up worse off in the long-term.

What you have stated is true up to this point: short-sightedness always ends up bad whether you are working purely for yourself, or even if you are TRYING to do good.  So short-sightedness is ALWAYS bad.

But being selfish, even IN THE LONG RUN is bad.  And while those bad effects will take that much longer to materialize, they ALWAYS will.  Working purely in your own self-interest (even if your definition of "self" expands outside oneself to encompass others) will result in a bad result eventually.

Only being selfLESS will produce good results.  Doing what is best for the good of all, even at the LONG-TERM expense of self well-being.  This is the key difference between selfish long-term and selfless long-term.  The both will sacrifice in the short term, as that is almost always necessary from either perspective, but the selfish one in the long-term will NEVER completely sacrifice themselves for the good of all, and thus their results will always be tainted.

[Lord J Esq]

That's interesting, Eriol. You should read Ayn Rand. While I don't agree with her philosophical bent, she makes the best arguments I've ever read in favor of individualism. From there it isn't a far philosophical jaunt to make legitimate attacks on selflessness and altruism, which are heavily overrated in our time. In any case, I haven't got the time to get into this today, but do check out one of her books, like Atlas Shrugged. You might appreciate her heinously anti-liberal message. =)

[Zaperking]

I have to admit this... War is interesting.....

I remember the day that War officially started in Iraq, at 12 noon our time. The moment the clock turned to noon, everyone just stood there in silence.... and then started going "OMG WE'RE GONA DIE!" and everyone was running around for no reason, but it was fun ^.^

[nightmare975]

You should read Ayn Rand.

God, Ann Rand made me hate reading.

[Lord J Esq]

You should read Ayn Rand.

God, Ann Rand made me hate reading.

I hear ya. I hated reading her. But she has some very powerful lessons to teach. It's a necessary experience.

[nightmare975]

You should read Ayn Rand.

God, Ann Rand made me hate reading.

I hear ya. I hated reading her. But she has some very powerful lessons to teach. It's a necessary experience.

You read the one about the people who are all "we"? I can't remember the name. I read it in 15 minutes. I want those 15 minute back!

[Sir Frog]

You read the one about the people who are all "we"? I can't remember the name. I read it in 15 minutes. I want those 15 minute back!

You mean the U.S. Declaration of Independence?  

[nightmare975]

You read the one about the people who are all "we"? I can't remember the name. I read it in 15 minutes. I want those 15 minute back!

You mean the U.S. Declaration of Independence?  

No, an Ann Rand "book" is you can call them that. Torture devices is more like it.

[Kazuki]

You read the one about the people who are all "we"? I can't remember the name. I read it in 15 minutes. I want those 15 minute back!

You mean the U.S. Declaration of Independence?  

Wow heh...last year in my school we had to do an analysis and report about the Decleration, and I completely know what you mean   .

[Sir Frog]

You read the one about the people who are all "we"? I can't remember the name. I read it in 15 minutes. I want those 15 minute back!

You mean the U.S. Declaration of Independence?  

Wow heh...last year in my school we had to do an analysis and report about the Decleration, and I completely know what you mean   .

LOL, I don't think you do, and I don't think nightmare975 did either!    I was just going after the obvious the people are we = we the people joke.

[Burning Zeppelin]

Helping Katrina victims? The military shot down a 16yr old blak kid who was stealing food. Oh wow, the black people are stealing food. so are the white guys. But they make it seem that the black people are criminals (once again) the people who are stealing TV's, now they ARE idiots, for they cant even use them, and they will be wighing them down.

food can be replaced by insurance. lives cant