To serve one's ego

Remove all ads!

How about this action, Morgoth? A prison warden who has to flip the switch on the electric chair.

I'm assuming that holding the job isn't dependent upon performing executions.

 

It's a devaluation of the ethics you have hold high so far, quite mean isn't it?

Isn't it the other way around?
You're evil because you do evil

Let's assume that my theory can't support that action, then why has he done it?

 

I'm currently doing job searchs, why? Because I consider it an investment needed to survive in the future.

Required by my moral, no, not really. Optional yes, required no.

Makes me feel good? No, feels like a waste of time.

Doing the right thing? The act is pretty neutral to this statement. It doesn't feel right or wrong, it's just there since I feel I'm wasting time with it.

But I'm doing to earn money and become something more am I not? No I don't think so, but if you're a convict of that theory, you would think so.

another one:
I eat because I'm hungry. Not moral, ethic, feeling good or right foundation.
I eat because I need to survive, does it make me fool good? Yes, but that is not reason I eat, I eat to stay alive.

 

A contrived scenario: It's a function of the job, but not to the point of "do this or face unemployment." If the warden had passed it off, a random person would have been chosen to perform the execution. Since the other knows nothing ofwhat s/he almost had to do, there's no debt of gratitude involved. The prisoner is not a particular troublemaker, so eliminating him/her does not make the warden's job any easier.

The weak link here is the warden's choice: is it based on a sense of duty, or a desire to spare the next person in line?

 

Lokken, you didn't read the editnote of my first post

 

Morgoth that's what I mean, in my opinion the theory is not a good one because you set it up to twist every action to be a selfish one.

I think you're a supporter of the theory because you don't see the poor foundation of the theory.
In terms of theories that twist everything around to support itself, I would like to see solid hard proof for the statement and not against it, since in the theory all actions are accounted for.

The main question here is, as Ragusa put it, do you believe that your actions when doing what is feeling right, feeling good, etc. has anything to do with your ego? Then yes, you are most likely a zealous convictionate believer of that theory.

I say I do not believe, and to make me believe, I would like to see the evidence for it.

I once believed it, but no more. In my personal experience, I gained higher insight in my own acts and most have nothing to do with my ego.

As for an action that hasn't nothing to do with the original statement, would be that I sit in front of my computer all day.
Do I like it? no, it's habit.
Do I want to do other things? Yes there's loads of things that I feel are right that I should do, but I still dont get them done.
It's destroying myself, and I don't see in any way that I gain anything from it.

They why do I do it? I don't know, why do I?

As for the topic title, yes you serve your ego, I agree. But that doesn't mean your ego rules everything you do, not at all.

[ July 30, 2003, 15:57: Message edited by: Lokken ]

 

Morgoth,

How about those people who are selfish and ruthlessly egoistic - but don't follow their impulses, let's say because of fear to get caught or because they get further staying within the limits of what's socially just-so accepted?
Does that make them good? Or neutral? I'm speaking, in D&D terms, LE variant.

 

You're lazy

Inside this topic? yes
Outside this topic? nope

So you're saying that when you're thinking "evil", you're doing nothing? Thinking "evil" makes one "evil" too

I think there is still an interpretation difference, I am ego, ego is for me myself.

We also have the subconscious which is "the self", but that's a different story.

When you look at a group of toddlers, they hardly care for each other, it's all down to mine mine mine!!.
Unless mommy and daddy told them that whole "mine mine mine" thing was wrong.

If people weren't taught morals and ethics and didn't know of the concept justice, wouldn't they commit crimes then?

[ July 30, 2003, 16:22: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

Definitely, yes. It's easy - just come to sweden or any other civilised country and they will commit a crime when acting the way you described, that means for example killing a person without knowledge it's wrong/ prohibited/ evil or whatever.

A crime is a defined and sanctioned act; by putting it into reality you commit it, irrelevant what your background is.
Later you can maybe use your ignorance or whatever other excuse comes to your mind for your defence but it is still a crime unless the deed is exculpated or justified.

 

I'm lazy?

Not really, a mixture of being lazy and being scared is more likely. However, how does that serve my ego? In my opinion, it does not.

I just put the action here, you put the proof of it being in the theory. I say theory's broken.

As for the concept of justice, it is very vague. All depends on your point of view. And thinking evil definitely does not make you evil. Having the feelings of vengeace is very healthy as long as they stay in the mind and is forgotten after a time. Missing them however, can bring some serious malfunctions to your emotions.

 

Have you ever done something you didn't desire more than the other option?

*******************
But to make the further implication that what we want is always selfish is something that requires redefining "selfish".

Furthermore, assuming it were true that people only acted selfishly, then you wouldn't need a normative theory that says that you should act selfishly. If the assumption were true, you wouldn't have a choice in the matter.

Oh wait, that means predetermination, there is a thing as fate, it's just that WE make it

********

*removed*

Edit: I am kinda getting persuaded by the Soldier-drops-on-grenade case.

Stanford

-- fin --

[ August 01, 2003, 13:46: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

yes, this is precisely the point of my previous post. I'm doing it fairly often.

What I think is main question behind the theory, which has a much more approachable content than the theory itself is:

Do we make actions because they gain some personal benefit.
or
Do we make actions in which you could often trace personal benefits.

There is a huge difference. If you say yes to the first statement, then you're following the theory. If you say yes to the second, then the theory is immediatly broken.

The theory so far cannot be proven or denied, so it's a matter of what you believe in. If you can prove it however, then bring on the evidence.
And this is what I mean by a poor foundation, there's nothing solid yet (that I've seen anyways).

 

This thread is one of Morgoth's hidden agendas Vs Religion.

But since everthing we write serves everyones ego its a no loose situation, right? Even if I humiliated myself I would serve my ego, right? Take a street dog beeing stoned and harrashed by everyone in a mexican city(no offence, I am just serving my ego...). Someday a journalist comes by and pads the dog ( I mean she is just serving her ego). Now nomatter what the journalist does the dog undermines its own dignity and does everthing in its power to get another pad on the back. Why? It is just serving its own ego.

Since the definiton of egoistic in short is "of or relating to the self", Lokken is right. Of course everything you do consciously relates to yourself. But as I started of by saying; It is your agenda versus religon.

edit; just for the information this is *not* a theory but a hypothesis. So far... Both my agenda conspiracy and Morgoths proposals.

[ August 04, 2003, 18:44: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

 

I've already said before I don't believe in altruism. As all other things in nature, the human psyche/personality is very simple in the end. It all comes from one goal, survival and pleasure of self.

 

Monday: make fuzzy treads on SP.
Tuesday: Set fire to the church.
Wednesday: Set fire to the mosque.
Thursday: Make very very wrong jokes about Jews.
Friday: Recite Friedrich Nietzsche.
Saturday: Recite Jean-Paul Sartre.
Sunday: Work.



BTW: If every self-explanatory theory is wrong, isn't the effect-cause theory then wrong too, as in things will move without any bloody cause.

 

I think he was looking for the phrase circular argument. We are egoistic because we act. We act because we are egoistic. etc