Discussion Thread

[bennychico11]

You're not asking a good question. We know the definition of evil. The holocaust. Stuff like that.

 

Putting blind faith in the promise of eternal life and eternal damnation of those who have done us wrong, whilst living on earth to suffer, when there is absolutely no evidence that that being even exists, is mind-blowingly asinine.

 

but who defines evil? The holocaust was evil to the Jews but to the Nazi's it was just. Much like how slavery was considered normal to many people. Good and evil are learned and defined differently in different cultures. Religion has helped shaped those definitions...there's no doubt about that. But in the end, whether god exists or doesn't, man is the one who really has made the decision of what is evil and what isn't.

[Husker_x]

You're not asking a good question. We know the definition of evil. The holocaust. Stuff like that.

 

Putting blind faith in the promise of eternal life and eternal damnation of those who have done us wrong, whilst living on earth to suffer, when there is absolutely no evidence that that being even exists, is mind-blowingly asinine.

 

but who defines evil? The holocaust was evil to the Jews but to the Nazi's it was just. Much like how slavery was considered normal to many people. Good and evil are learned and defined differently in different cultures. Religion has helped shaped those definitions...there's no doubt about that. But in the end, whether god exists or doesn't, man is the one who really has made the decision of what is evil and what isn't.

 

Exactly my point. The morality Huskerjack happens to believe in is entirely as accidental as anyone's religious upbringing. If he'd been born in Roman times he would have likely approved of the Coliseum, or the death penalty for causing the Consul's caravan to stop in the street because someone was in the way. If he'd been born in the south in 1803, he would have likely agreed that slavery was a natural right of a person (which is a whole other issue because it seems slavery has existed everywhere in the world and is as natural to a society as farming).

 

We absolutely do not know the definition of evil. Even if we could come to some jerry rigged evolutionary answer, we still have the problem of our own rationality punching holes in it.

[huskerjack23]

Did you just say that I approve of murder and slavery?

[Husker_x]

Did you just say that I approve of murder and slavery?

 

No. You had the advantage of being born in a Judeo-Christian culture post-enlightenment. But this is an accident of genetics and timing as much as a product of thoughtfulness on your part. Had you been born in Rome (or me for that matter), you would have probably accepted slavery as a part of normal life. If you'd been born in Sparta in 400 BC, you probably would have believed it was okay to steal and kill so long as it was to make you a better soldier. No one seems to take any notice that the culture in which your were raised as as much an impact on your version of morality as anything else. If this is the case, morality is not formed on absolutes, and is therefore relative.

[huskerjack23]

You're not asking a good question. We know the definition of evil. The holocaust. Stuff like that.

 

Putting blind faith in the promise of eternal life and eternal damnation of those who have done us wrong, whilst living on earth to suffer, when there is absolutely no evidence that that being even exists, is mind-blowingly asinine.

 

but who defines evil? The holocaust was evil to the Jews but to the Nazi's it was just. Much like how slavery was considered normal to many people. Good and evil are learned and defined differently in different cultures. Religion has helped shaped those definitions...there's no doubt about that. But in the end, whether god exists or doesn't, man is the one who really has made the decision of what is evil and what isn't.

My morality is determined by my own thoughts, perceptions and experiences as well as the thoughts, perceptions and experience of society, with my basis having priority.

 

And if man determines what is evil and what isn't, what's wrong with that? Just as long as someone didn't command you to follow a set of guidelines with a threat of death, then it's all gravy.

 

I just listened to an atheist experience podcast that dealt with this.

 

http://blip.tv/file/2184961 skip ahead to 25:50

[Husker_x]

You're not asking a good question. We know the definition of evil. The holocaust. Stuff like that.

 

Putting blind faith in the promise of eternal life and eternal damnation of those who have done us wrong, whilst living on earth to suffer, when there is absolutely no evidence that that being even exists, is mind-blowingly asinine.

 

but who defines evil? The holocaust was evil to the Jews but to the Nazi's it was just. Much like how slavery was considered normal to many people. Good and evil are learned and defined differently in different cultures. Religion has helped shaped those definitions...there's no doubt about that. But in the end, whether god exists or doesn't, man is the one who really has made the decision of what is evil and what isn't.

My morality is determined by my own thoughts, perceptions and experiences as well as the thoughts, perceptions and experience of society, with my basis having priority.

 

And if man determines what is evil and what isn't, what's wrong with that? Just as long as someone didn't command you to follow a set of guidelines with a threat of death, then it's all gravy.

 

I just listened to an atheist experience podcast that dealt with this.

 

http://blip.tv/file/2184961 skip ahead to 25:50

 

I'll try to listen to the whole thing sometime tonight and post some thoughts on it.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Exactly my point. The morality Huskerjack happens to believe in is entirely as accidental as anyone's religious upbringing. If he'd been born in Roman times he would have likely approved of the Coliseum, or the death penalty for causing the Consul's caravan to stop in the street because someone was in the way. If he'd been born in the south in 1803, he would have likely agreed that slavery was a natural right of a person (which is a whole other issue because it seems slavery has existed everywhere in the world and is as natural to a society as farming).

 

We absolutely do not know the definition of evil. Even if we could come to some jerry rigged evolutionary answer, we still have the problem of our own rationality punching holes in it.

Morality(p.11) is definitely not accidental.

 

Choosing effective guides to action is not a matter for blind faith or reasonless whim; it requires clear, rational thought. Therefore, one's morality shouldn't be a set of dos and don'ts inherited from one's parents or learned in church or school. It should be a clearly thought-out code, guiding one toward pro-life actions and away from anti-life actions. "The purpose of morality is . . . to teach you to enjoy yourself and live." A rational morality doesn't say, "Don't do this because God (or society, or legal authorities, or tradition) says it's evil." It does say, "Only if you act according to your reason can you have a happy, satisfying life."

 

In any code of morality, there must be a standard—a standard by which all goals and actions can be judged. Only life makes values meaningful . . . or even possible—if you're dead you can't experience any values at all (and without values, happiness is impossible). So, for each man who values living, his own life is his

moral standard (death, the negation of all values, is the only alternative "standard"). Since each man's own life is his objective standard, it follows that whatever serves or enhances his life and well-being is good, and whatever damages or destroys it is wrong. In a rational morality—one designed to further each individual man's life and happiness, whatever is pro-life is moral and whatever is anti-life is immoral. By "life" is not meant merely man's physical existence but all aspects of his life as a sensing, thinking being. Only by rational thought and action can a man's life be lived to its fullest potential, producing the greatest possible happiness and satisfaction for him.

 

Man has only one tool for getting knowledge—his mind, and only one means to know what is beneficial and harmful—his faculty of reason. Only by thinking can he know what will further his life and what will harm it. For this reason, choosing to think is man's most powerful tool and greatest virtue, and refusing to think is his greatest danger, the surest way to bring him to destruction.

 

Since man's life is what makes all his values possible, morality means acting in his own self-interest, which is acting in a pro-life manner. There is nothing mystical or hard to understand about right and wrong—a rational morality makes sense. Traditional morality, teaching that each man must devote a part of his life, not primarily for his own good, but for God or the State or "the common good," regards man as a sacrificial animal. Today, many are recognizing this doctrine for what it is—the cause of incalculable human carnage, and a morality or life is gradually replacing it. A rational morality is a morality of self-interest—a pro-life morality.

 

The only way for a man to know what will further his life is by a process of reason; morality, therefore, means acting in his rational self-interest (in fact, no other kind of self-interest exists, since only that which is rational is in one's self-interest). Sacrifice (the act of giving up a greater value for a lesser value, a non-value, or a dis-value) is always wrong, because it is destructive of the life and well-being of the sacrificing individual. In spite of traditional "moralities" which glorify "a life of sacrificial service to others," sacrifice can never benefit anyone. It demoralizes both the giver, who has diminished his total store of value, and the recipient, who feels guilty about accepting the sacrifice and resentful because he feels he is morally bound to return the "favor" by sacrificing some value of his own. Sacrifice, carried to its ultimate end, results in death; it is the exact opposite of moral, pro-life behavior, traditional "moralists" to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

A man who is acting in his own self-interest (that is, who is acting morally) neither makes sacrifices nor demands that others sacrifice for him. There is no conflict of interest between men who are each acting in his own self-interest, because it is not in the interest of either to sacrifice for the other or to demand a sacrifice from the other. Conflicts are produced when men ignore their self-interest and accept the notion that sacrifice is beneficial; sacrifice is always anti-life.

 

In summary: man, by his nature, must choose to think and produce in order to live, and the better he thinks, the better he will live. Since each man's own life makes his values possible, chosen behavior which furthers his life as a thinking being is the moral, and chosen behavior which harms it is the immoral. (Without free choice, morality is impossible.) Therefore, rational thought and action and their rewards, emotional, physical, and material, are the whole of a man's self-interest. The opposite of self-interest is sacrifice which is always wrong because it's destructive of human life.

[Husker_x]

Two men are walking through a deserted part of the world, many days walk from a food source. They stumble upon a skinny apple tree on the plain with a single ripe apple hanging from it. Rational self-interest would dictate that you take the apple regardless of the cost. If the other man tries to take the apple, you kill him and take it for yourself. Is this moral?

 

Since each man's own life is his objective standard, it follows that whatever serves or enhances his life and well-being is good, and whatever damages or destroys it is wrong.

 

This line of reasoning appears to be so blatantly self-contradictory that it precludes even bothering with the rest. Each man's standard is his objective standard. Then what happens when two men have competing standards? There are people in this world who are not human inside. They derive pleasure almost exclusively from the harm they can cause others. Therefore their personal objective standard of happiness is the destruction they cause. If their standard is absolute, their actions are not immoral. To argue this would be essentially to deny morality as a concept holds any value, which it seemingly doesn't in an atheistic universe. A 'rational morality' equals nothing more or less than doing whatever you please, and is itself a denial or objective morality. It is moral relativism with a thick side of Darwin.

[Husker_x]

You're not asking a good question. We know the definition of evil. The holocaust. Stuff like that.

 

Putting blind faith in the promise of eternal life and eternal damnation of those who have done us wrong, whilst living on earth to suffer, when there is absolutely no evidence that that being even exists, is mind-blowingly asinine.

 

but who defines evil? The holocaust was evil to the Jews but to the Nazi's it was just. Much like how slavery was considered normal to many people. Good and evil are learned and defined differently in different cultures. Religion has helped shaped those definitions...there's no doubt about that. But in the end, whether god exists or doesn't, man is the one who really has made the decision of what is evil and what isn't.

My morality is determined by my own thoughts, perceptions and experiences as well as the thoughts, perceptions and experience of society, with my basis having priority.

 

And if man determines what is evil and what isn't, what's wrong with that? Just as long as someone didn't command you to follow a set of guidelines with a threat of death, then it's all gravy.

 

I just listened to an atheist experience podcast that dealt with this.

 

http://blip.tv/file/2184961 skip ahead to 25:50

 

Huskerjack,

 

Just got finished watching the episode. Thought it was fantastic. Very well argued segment (though the gal on there seemed to mostly be filling space the way Jack Van Impe's wife is a professional smile-and-nodder).

 

Couple of thoughts.

 

1. One of the points that seemed almost totally incoherent with regards to the morality discussion was the base-viewpoint argument. Essentially what we have is two basic options if we are to pick a moral code: either we want to survive as a species, or we don't. If you do want to survive, then morality will involve sustaining life, doing what we call 'good', yadda yadda. If we don't have survival as a goal, morality is unnecessary. Here's the problem. Survival is an unattainable goal. I've written this in other debates before, but our human mind is basically the worst trick every played on us by evolution via natural selection. We KNOW that not only our lives will inevitably end, but so will our species and universe. To borrow a line from Fight Club, "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero." Therefore your motivation to be moral is shoddy at best, masochistic at worse. Right now as your read this your hourglass is running out of sand. When you die it's blackness. So what possible difference does it make what you do between then and now, or when your end comes?

 

2. The other point the show hosts raised was that society is built on moral principles to further not only survival but a certain standard of living that's better than the alternative. That's all well and good, but when society reaches a certain stage and size, the actions––good or bad––of a single individual are meaningless to the whole. If you can act immorally and neither A-get caught, nor B-destroy or limit the pleasantries of society, what's the motivation to be moral other than simple animal instinct and conditioning? This is what's known as the Free Rider Objection, and is presently unsolved in philosophy.

 

3. Last thing that caught me was a game of semantics being played on whether or not to call yourself an atheist or an agnostic. Admittedly this is a minor issue, but despite the well-intentioned argument, I'm unconvinced. God exists or he doesn't is a true dichotomy. No issue there. But to say that denying the proposition, "There is a God," does not seem to me to require the default position be atheism. Granted, it does not follow that to deny the aforementioned claim means that you must advance the claim, "There is no God." But the answer that is given by the show host ("I lack sufficient evidence and therefore do not accept the claim there is a God") is only half truth. It does not necessarily result in the default position being atheism. The full negation to the claim, "There is a God" would seem better completed: "I lack sufficient evidence and do not accept the claim there is a God; however because the possibility still exists, I do not know." The result here would be agnosticism, not atheism. The term 'atheist' is an affirmative position, "There is (or I believe there is) no God." It is not in my opinion to be conflated with "I lack evidence and therefore do not know." It seems to be to be a semantic sleight of hand going on here. However I could be wrong and not understanding his full argument.

 

Thanks for the video.

[bennychico11]

Morality is definitely not accidental.

 

A man who is acting in his own self-interest (that is, who is acting morally) neither makes sacrifices nor demands that others sacrifice for him. There is no conflict of interest between men who are each acting in his own self-interest, because it is not in the interest of either to sacrifice for the other or to demand a sacrifice from the other.

 

so therefore, all of men are immoral? Any one being who has risked his life to save a child, any one who has helped a friend move, any one who has gone off to fight in war...all of these are examples of self-less and immoral people?

Bringing it back around to the original topic of discussion (religion)...Jesus would be considered immoral. Probably the most immoral person in the Christian religion.

if so, morality would definitely be rare.

 

I think what we're trying to say (at least I was) is that morality is evolutionary...but not innate.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Two men are walking through a deserted part of the world, many days walk from a food source. They stumble upon a skinny apple tree on the plain with a single ripe apple hanging from it. Rational self-interest would dictate that you take the apple regardless of the cost. If the other man tries to take the apple, you kill him and take it for yourself. Is this moral?

 

Since each man's own life is his objective standard, it follows that whatever serves or enhances his life and well-being is good, and whatever damages or destroys it is wrong.

 

This line of reasoning appears to be so blatantly self-contradictory that it precludes even bothering with the rest. Each man's standard is his objective standard. Then what happens when two men have competing standards? There are people in this world who are not human inside. They derive pleasure almost exclusively from the harm they can cause others. Therefore their personal objective standard of happiness is the destruction they cause. If their standard is absolute, their actions are not immoral. To argue this would be essentially to deny morality as a concept holds any value, which it seemingly doesn't in an atheistic universe. A 'rational morality' equals nothing more or less than doing whatever you please, and is itself a denial or objective morality. It is moral relativism with a thick side of Darwin.

Your first example is a false dichotomy because # 1. the world we live in is full of endless options and choices, each depending on the ability of the individual, in each scenario, to think. It's rarely the choice of kill or be killed, though those types of situations do occur, and in this case, couldn't they also share the apple. And #2. Even if that was the case, you'd have to look at the property rights issue, who discovered the apple first. Also, if the person would die without the apple would that not constitute self defense and then absolutely the killing of the other man would be moral and justified.

 

On your second point, I don't see the contradiction. Does the idea of conflict resolution ever occur to you, that maybe it would be in the best interest of each individual to work ot their problems. Once again your seeing each situation as either live and kill or die, that is a false dichotomy. You also think that people receive joy from the pain of others, and while this may be true, those people are definitely not looking out for their own best interest. For starters initiating force against others leaves one open to the possibility of being hurt and others initiating force against you. Also, it leaves the initiator accountable for the consequences of hurting others. How would either of those be in any individuals best interest?

[SOCALHUSKER]

Morality is definitely not accidental.

 

A man who is acting in his own self-interest (that is, who is acting morally) neither makes sacrifices nor demands that others sacrifice for him. There is no conflict of interest between men who are each acting in his own self-interest, because it is not in the interest of either to sacrifice for the other or to demand a sacrifice from the other.

 

so therefore, all of men are immoral? Any one being who has risked his life to save a child, any one who has helped a friend move, any one who has gone off to fight in war...all of these are examples of self-less and immoral people?

Bringing it back around to the original topic of discussion (religion)...Jesus would be considered immoral. Probably the most immoral person in the Christian religion.

if so, morality would definitely be rare.

 

I think what we're trying to say (at least I was) is that morality is evolutionary...but not innate.

 

No, not all men are immoral. Sacrifice does not necessarily constitute any action of helping others. It involves receiving nothing back from your actions or something of less value. If the person saving a child values helping others, or the joy the child brings to his life more than he does the burns or whatever he receives, how is he sacrificing anything? He is receiving the joy of the childs life, which is not sacrificing at all. And your example of helping a friend move, what if that person values that person's friendship more than the time and energy spent moving. That would not constitute sacrifice because that person is being compensated for a value more than he is expelling. And as for fighting in wars...I'll have to expand on that topic later because that's a thread of its own. (Maybe you can start it?)

 

And as for Jesus, I really don't know enough about his history to qualify him as immoral or moral. If what the bible says is true, that he sacrificed himself so that everyone could be saved, then I would say he's pretty immoral. Sure, he had moral qualities but if anyone willingly ends their own life they have no morals at all.

 

And yes I agree that morals are evolutionary because they arise and evolve from each choice that we make. And while the possibility of choices for each situation may be endless, all are either pro-life or anti-life. If you choose that which is in your rational self interest you are moral, if not you are immoral.

[Husker_x]

Two men are walking through a deserted part of the world, many days walk from a food source. They stumble upon a skinny apple tree on the plain with a single ripe apple hanging from it. Rational self-interest would dictate that you take the apple regardless of the cost. If the other man tries to take the apple, you kill him and take it for yourself. Is this moral?

 

Since each man's own life is his objective standard, it follows that whatever serves or enhances his life and well-being is good, and whatever damages or destroys it is wrong.

 

This line of reasoning appears to be so blatantly self-contradictory that it precludes even bothering with the rest. Each man's standard is his objective standard. Then what happens when two men have competing standards? There are people in this world who are not human inside. They derive pleasure almost exclusively from the harm they can cause others. Therefore their personal objective standard of happiness is the destruction they cause. If their standard is absolute, their actions are not immoral. To argue this would be essentially to deny morality as a concept holds any value, which it seemingly doesn't in an atheistic universe. A 'rational morality' equals nothing more or less than doing whatever you please, and is itself a denial or objective morality. It is moral relativism with a thick side of Darwin.

Your first example is a false dichotomy because # 1. the world we live in is full of endless options and choices, each depending on the ability of the individual, in each scenario, to think. It's rarely the choice of kill or be killed, though those types of situations do occur, and in this case, couldn't they also share the apple. And #2. Even if that was the case, you'd have to look at the property rights issue, who discovered the apple first. Also, if the person would die without the apple would that not constitute self defense and then absolutely the killing of the other man would be moral and justified.

 

On your second point, I don't see the contradiction. Does the idea of conflict resolution ever occur to you, that maybe it would be in the best interest of each individual to work ot their problems. Once again your seeing each situation as either live and kill or die, that is a false dichotomy. You also think that people receive joy from the pain of others, and while this may be true, those people are definitely not looking out for their own best interest. For starters initiating force against others leaves one open to the possibility of being hurt and others initiating force against you. Also, it leaves the initiator accountable for the consequences of hurting others. How would either of those be in any individuals best interest?

 

On point one, I rest my case. Rational self-interest has now been demonstrated to be ethically and morally bankrupt. Initiating force to preserve your own life when not under direct attack from another individual is considered moral. You have now stepped into moral relativism, which is a logical road to go down, but a terrifying one.

 

I'm using the extremes because this is a philosophical, not a pragmatic, discussion. It is possible for a human being to not believe that preserving his life is in his best interest, or goodness, or love, or justice, for that matter. There are genuinely strange people––we'd normally call them evil––that derive purpose and pleasure from pure acts of cruelty and destruction, perhaps even their own destruction. By your own moral code, whatever is in an individual's personal interest, that thing is morality. You cannot then argue that one of these people––however marginal––is immoral, but rather you may only argue that his standard competes with yours. May the stronger party win.

 

Most day to day moral conundrums are easily solved with a little thought. This isn't the issue. The issue is what do you do when you have two mutually exclusive ideologies? What if one of them isn't willing to live and let live. What if one of them doesn't factor in your rights as even slightly important in their moral viewpoint? What do you do? (Hint: Luke used it to blow up the Death Star.)

[SOCALHUSKER]

Two men are walking through a deserted part of the world, many days walk from a food source. They stumble upon a skinny apple tree on the plain with a single ripe apple hanging from it. Rational self-interest would dictate that you take the apple regardless of the cost. If the other man tries to take the apple, you kill him and take it for yourself. Is this moral?

 

Since each man's own life is his objective standard, it follows that whatever serves or enhances his life and well-being is good, and whatever damages or destroys it is wrong.

 

This line of reasoning appears to be so blatantly self-contradictory that it precludes even bothering with the rest. Each man's standard is his objective standard. Then what happens when two men have competing standards? There are people in this world who are not human inside. They derive pleasure almost exclusively from the harm they can cause others. Therefore their personal objective standard of happiness is the destruction they cause. If their standard is absolute, their actions are not immoral. To argue this would be essentially to deny morality as a concept holds any value, which it seemingly doesn't in an atheistic universe. A 'rational morality' equals nothing more or less than doing whatever you please, and is itself a denial or objective morality. It is moral relativism with a thick side of Darwin.

Your first example is a false dichotomy because # 1. the world we live in is full of endless options and choices, each depending on the ability of the individual, in each scenario, to think. It's rarely the choice of kill or be killed, though those types of situations do occur, and in this case, couldn't they also share the apple. And #2. Even if that was the case, you'd have to look at the property rights issue, who discovered the apple first. Also, if the person would die without the apple would that not constitute self defense and then absolutely the killing of the other man would be moral and justified.

 

On your second point, I don't see the contradiction. Does the idea of conflict resolution ever occur to you, that maybe it would be in the best interest of each individual to work ot their problems. Once again your seeing each situation as either live and kill or die, that is a false dichotomy. You also think that people receive joy from the pain of others, and while this may be true, those people are definitely not looking out for their own best interest. For starters initiating force against others leaves one open to the possibility of being hurt and others initiating force against you. Also, it leaves the initiator accountable for the consequences of hurting others. How would either of those be in any individuals best interest?

 

On point one, I rest my case. Rational self-interest has now been demonstrated to be ethically and morally bankrupt. Initiating force to preserve your own life when not under direct attack from another individual is considered moral. You have now stepped into moral relativism, which is a logical road to go down, but a terrifying one.

 

I'm using the extremes because this is a philosophical, not a pragmatic, discussion. It is possible for a human being to not believe that preserving his life is in his best interest, or goodness, or love, or justice, for that matter. There are genuinely strange people––we'd normally call them evil––that derive purpose and pleasure from pure acts of cruelty and destruction, perhaps even their own destruction. By your own moral code, whatever is in an individual's personal interest, that thing is morality. You cannot then argue that one of these people––however marginal––is immoral, but rather you may only argue that his standard competes with yours. May the stronger party win.

 

Most day to day moral conundrums are easily solved with a little thought. This isn't the issue. The issue is what do you do when you have two mutually exclusive ideologies? What if one of them isn't willing to live and let live. What if one of them doesn't factor in your rights as even slightly important in their moral viewpoint? What do you do? (Hint: Luke used it to blow up the Death Star.)

 

How did you rest your case? You stated a scenario that cannot possible happen, how does that help your argument?

[huskerjack23]

Two men are walking through a deserted part of the world, many days walk from a food source. They stumble upon a skinny apple tree on the plain with a single ripe apple hanging from it. Rational self-interest would dictate that you take the apple regardless of the cost. If the other man tries to take the apple, you kill him and take it for yourself. Is this moral?

 

Since each man's own life is his objective standard, it follows that whatever serves or enhances his life and well-being is good, and whatever damages or destroys it is wrong.

 

This line of reasoning appears to be so blatantly self-contradictory that it precludes even bothering with the rest. Each man's standard is his objective standard. Then what happens when two men have competing standards? There are people in this world who are not human inside. They derive pleasure almost exclusively from the harm they can cause others. Therefore their personal objective standard of happiness is the destruction they cause. If their standard is absolute, their actions are not immoral. To argue this would be essentially to deny morality as a concept holds any value, which it seemingly doesn't in an atheistic universe. A 'rational morality' equals nothing more or less than doing whatever you please, and is itself a denial or objective morality. It is moral relativism with a thick side of Darwin.

Your first example is a false dichotomy because # 1. the world we live in is full of endless options and choices, each depending on the ability of the individual, in each scenario, to think. It's rarely the choice of kill or be killed, though those types of situations do occur, and in this case, couldn't they also share the apple. And #2. Even if that was the case, you'd have to look at the property rights issue, who discovered the apple first. Also, if the person would die without the apple would that not constitute self defense and then absolutely the killing of the other man would be moral and justified.

 

On your second point, I don't see the contradiction. Does the idea of conflict resolution ever occur to you, that maybe it would be in the best interest of each individual to work ot their problems. Once again your seeing each situation as either live and kill or die, that is a false dichotomy. You also think that people receive joy from the pain of others, and while this may be true, those people are definitely not looking out for their own best interest. For starters initiating force against others leaves one open to the possibility of being hurt and others initiating force against you. Also, it leaves the initiator accountable for the consequences of hurting others. How would either of those be in any individuals best interest?

 

On point one, I rest my case. Rational self-interest has now been demonstrated to be ethically and morally bankrupt. Initiating force to preserve your own life when not under direct attack from another individual is considered moral. You have now stepped into moral relativism, which is a logical road to go down, but a terrifying one.

 

I'm using the extremes because this is a philosophical, not a pragmatic, discussion. It is possible for a human being to not believe that preserving his life is in his best interest, or goodness, or love, or justice, for that matter. There are genuinely strange people––we'd normally call them evil––that derive purpose and pleasure from pure acts of cruelty and destruction, perhaps even their own destruction. By your own moral code, whatever is in an individual's personal interest, that thing is morality. You cannot then argue that one of these people––however marginal––is immoral, but rather you may only argue that his standard competes with yours. May the stronger party win.

 

Most day to day moral conundrums are easily solved with a little thought. This isn't the issue. The issue is what do you do when you have two mutually exclusive ideologies? What if one of them isn't willing to live and let live. What if one of them doesn't factor in your rights as even slightly important in their moral viewpoint? What do you do? (Hint: Luke used it to blow up the Death Star.)

I think you just proved my point. Society dictates a person's morality but the individual is the ultimate arbiter on their own decisions. This is what morality is.