Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7783306" data-attributes="member: 4937">I'll give you this much.  When I try to explain this sort of thing, I run short of English vocabulary.  "Selflessness" has several different definitions, one of which contains only emphasis on a lack of self concern, and one of which contrasts the lack of self concern with a deep concern for others.  Selflessness as characterized by deep concern for the well-being of others I don't disagree is good, and in fact if you closely read my post you'll find I say so (in apparent contradiction) at one point.  However, be clear that by "selflessness" I mean exactly what I said in the post - utter disregard for the value of self.   The selflessness that I'm holding up as bad is not the one that for example causes a police officer to trade his life for something of equal or greater value - the lives of the people he's sworn to protect, for example.   Recognizing the value of others equals ones self value is fully laudable even to a Chaotic Good philosophy, and indeed is central to it.   The selflessness that I'm talking about is when someone sells their life for something of little or no value or is made to believe by themselves or others that they lack value, an impulse seen for example in self-destructive lifestyles.Well, feel free to disagree with me all you want, but your assertion that every single moral code in human history disagrees with me is both erroneous and short-sighted.Erroneous, because I'm pretty sure what I've stated is congruent with mainstream Judeo-Christian ethics, which is one of the more (most?) influential moral codes in human history.  For example, the fact that the self has value and should be valued is why self-destructive acts can be considered to be wrong in its framework, and as I pointed out why the Golden Rule works.   This is something not all moral philosophies agree with.   Some more "lawful" minded moral philosophies reject the Golden Rule precisely on the grounds of its self-centeredness, proof if any more were needed that it leans Chaotic.  I could get into a very detailed discussion here and start quoting scripture, but when I start doing things like that it makes people uncomfortable.   Suffice to say, under one of the more dominate moral codes in human history seeing great value in even the least valued others is good", but seeing no value in the self and so selling the self cheaply is bad.    Short-sighted, in that other even more "chaotic" philosophies go the other way and assert the complete sovereignty of the self, and so reject both selflessness and additionally that self-destructiveness (so called "victimless crimes") can be condemned by anyone else.   For example, selflessness is the great evil of Objectivism, which while it's not a moral philosophy I subscribe to, is nonetheless definitely a code of normative ethics and one that a great deal of people claim to subscribe to.   In the description I've outlined, Objectivism is unsurprisingly Chaotic Neutral (pure self-interest, but not at the expense of others freedom), and unsurprisingly sees calls for "the greater good" and collectivism as being the basis of all wrong in the world.</blockquote>

Verification