The Biggest Question Ever to Approach a Leftist -or ethics in general

[Fight!]

Why. Do. I. Care?

Such a simple question that chokes me as it harasses and harries everything you can imagine. I have always placed morality and ethics at the core of all my decisions, all my opinions, it is the core of all contemplation on which I balance the options according to a set of values prioritizing liberty and the rights of the majority over all else. But why do I care? Why should I care? This question plagues me like the most deadly virus conceivable. While my unfortunate life's circumstances seem to have lead to the development of morales to give my life purpose, circumstances such as these now murk the waters of decision and cloud my judgement.

I have spent countless hours attempting to solve this question. Countless hours attempting to justify my morales. I just...don't understand. What once tied me to everything, all of my beliefs, all of my standards, all of my hope-is it meaningless? Why should I concern myself with the well-being of others? For the sake of morals themselves? Perhaps there was some underlying thread that lead to my morals being revered to as omni-potent. Perhaps selfishness? Makes sense. Perhaps I was merely being naive, and should instead attempt to snuff out all traces of morality from this mind of mine?

I just don't know anymore.

[Gaidin]

I got no idea why you think that question applies to a leftist specifically.

[Fight!]

I was more referring to myself.

Although, leftists are concerned with the well being of the majority, rightists are not. Leftists are typically more moralistic than rightists.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

I was more referring to myself.

Although, leftists are concerned with the well being of the majority, rightists are not. Leftists are typically more moralistic than rightists.

I disagree on both topics. There are well-meaning rightists..that doesn't mean they actually do things to help the majority. Leftists also don't tend to be moralistic (Some Anarchists do, Marxists try to be more rational).

[basics]

" Although, leftists are concerned with the well being of the majority, rightists are not. Leftists are typically more moralistic than rightists. "

nicoisbest,

I beg to disagree with your remark above. In my 68 years on this planet the one thing I have pondered during that time was why is it that socialists can speak the speak but never fufill in themselves the same speak. Since I was an apprentice armature winder and member of the ETU, I have watched all the famous brothers accumulate wealth beyond belief for themselves whilst at the same time demanding more and more of our money to spend on things that seldom come to fruition.

I can point to the Kinnocks, Hattersley, Benn, Blair and many others that include union leaders now and then who are all millionaires and them that want to be. They spend quite freely other peoples money and they always want more and that is just Britain. Looking at Europe it is no different. So to say that being left is better than being of the right could well be acceptable because of their greed but as far as morals go, no.

[Fight!]

Secure your own rights. The precedent it sets will allow others to secure theirs. Morals aren't limited to "the group", after all, what is the group but a collection of individuals?


Bare assertion™
Simply because their morals are different than yours does not mean that they don't have them. And simply because you think their way is not the best way forward for everyone, doesn't mean they don't.
The fact that I'm not a communist doesn't make me blind to communists' intentions. They want to make the world a better place, I just don't think it's the right way forward.
Similarly, the widely hated neocons wish to spread democracy and Western Civilization to the world. They want to make the world a better place, you and I just don't think it's the right way forward.

It's a syllogism using a deductive argument at it's core, it's not a bare assertion.

However, I did not say any of these things you're tacking on. I did not say rightists don't have morals. I didn't say it was necessarily the right way forward. I didn't say they didn't want to make the world a better place. But the fact of the matter is, Leftists are joined by a single thread. Equality. Meaning Leftists need to be moralistic to exist, whereas while there are many moralistic rightists, there are certainly many that aren't.

I disagree on both topics. There are well-meaning rightists..that doesn't mean they actually do things to help the majority. Leftists also don't tend to be moralistic (Some Anarchists do, Marxists try to be more rational).

I'm not saying all leftists are more moralistic than rightists. I'm not saying Leftists rely more on Ethos than Logos. I'm saying Leftists are all united under the banner of equality, whereas Rightists are disunited in the sense that there are many who either just don't like taxes, want to keep their vast supplies of money, or actually have a noble cause.

In truth you don't care. If you really cared you would personally act upon it.There is nothing stopping you from giving your time and wealth to your cause. If you cared this would satisfy a desire improve the conditions of others. You would be happy and fulfilled. Instead your actual base motivation is power and it is expressing itself in a way you have been conditioned to accept, i.e. "caring" about social justice.

You are conflicted because you innately understand that the actions / intellectual efforts you have put forth have been to serve your actual goal (the aquisition of power) while you have let slide opportunity to achieve your outward, yet false goal.

But I could be wrong. Its really late here.

At first I was kind of insulted by this, but it kind of makes sense. WHat if I really have only wanted power all along?

Caring makes you a human.

What you believe is irrelevant. I'm sure I have never seen Squiggle say a a thing I agree with, but that does not mean that i don't value his opinions, or think that he is not a good person.

In your case I would guess that your reasonably young and contemplating life. You need to find the spark that gives your life meaning. It might be a family, it might be going to work and doing a good job, it might be though God, or something else. Just stop pretending this is a universal question and not just you looking for an answer.

I still think this is a universal question, but you may be right. Actually, I had thought I found the spark that gave my life meaning, but alas it only occurs on weekends, meaning I suppose it's somewhat incomplete.

I don't know what this spark could be otherwise.

" Although, leftists are concerned with the well being of the majority, rightists are not. Leftists are typically more moralistic than rightists. "

nicoisbest,

I beg to disagree with your remark above. In my 68 years on this planet the one thing I have pondered during that time was why is it that socialists can speak the speak but never fufill in themselves the same speak. Since I was an apprentice armature winder and member of the ETU, I have watched all the famous brothers accumulate wealth beyond belief for themselves whilst at the same time demanding more and more of our money to spend on things that seldom come to fruition.

I can point to the Kinnocks, Hattersley, Benn, Blair and many others that include union leaders now and then who are all millionaires and them that want to be. They spend quite freely other peoples money and they always want more and that is just Britain. Looking at Europe it is no different. So to say that being left is better than being of the right could well be acceptable because of their greed but as far as morals go, no.

I'm not saying the Left better than the Right, just that by nature the right has many who care only about themselves. The left might have some coincidentally, but it isn't a built in demographic like it is with the Right.

Anything you want can be achieved more effectively and more efficiently via cooperation. At the most basic level of 'why you should care' the answer is you should care because it's better for you.

Pretty much it.

I suppose you're right, but then where do I draw the line between caring for manipulation and caring for morality for the sake of possible aid?

You care because that's how your brain is wired.

I don't understand

Because it makes you feel good if your actions benefiting other people. Or so you don't feel guilty for making other people feel bad.

I guess, but I'm getting the feeling less and less. I no longer get some fuzzy feeling when I help people, now it's more like emptiness with a groan.

[Elfdude]

I suppose you're right, but then where do I draw the line between caring for manipulation and caring for morality for the sake of possible aid?

It doesn't matter. I appealed to the lowest common denominator. If you were selfish you would care for that reason. If you weren't selfish you would assert reasons to care yourself. If you can give someone who is selfish a reason to care which makes them integrate into society cooperatively it doesn't matter whether they do it because of long term benefit or not. I wouldn't call it manipulation either, manipulation is biasing someone's knowledge in order to get them to choose your point of view. Manipulation works against cooperation if the victim understands what you're doing so personally I avoid it. Persuasion is simply presenting the truth and allowing the person to come to terms with it.

Truth is, at the most basic animalistic level cooperation is better than non cooperation. All higher animals develop it. Mammals owe their success to it. A pair of animals working together survive much better than a single animal working together. Humans on the other hand seem to have an ideal population group/community group size of about 1000 humans, of those 1000 humans humans typically form friendship (part of your direct social network) with upwards of 100. See dunbars number. Humans are probably the only animal who makes understanding and cooperating with so many individuals a priority. Humans also generally spend around 50% of their day socializing and reinforcing those bonds.

Just think for a moment the number of social bonds you have, even those which you might consider unconditional. Without those bonds and those of your history how different of a man would you be? How much less would you have if you couldn't even act like you cared for others? (something sociopaths are quite aware of) Every interaction we make depends on our ability to cooperate from asking for coffee to asking for a job to getting into college. We can fake all of those interactions I suppose but to what end? Faking implies that at some point you'll stop but if stopping implies direct consequence to what you already have why stop at all?

So now, we've discovered the underlying goal which in itself is capable of providing you with motivation to cooperate. However the goal by itself doesn't provide you with a method to cooperate. This is where morals come in, they are the method to maximize human cooperation and success and to minimize human pain and the fragmenting of society. This is where some people choose to believe in god's morals, or some people choose to believe in philosophies. Whatever you choose however in understanding your goal and your method you can evaluate your effectiveness, with this knowledge we can objectively evaluate one method against another and come to the conclusion that there is a certain way, an objective morality if you will, to best achieve what you desire.

Which goes on to show, the question is not why should you care, but more importantly why wouldn't you? Masochism?

[Fight!]

No, nico. Everyone has morals. Just because you don't agree with their morals or can't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.

I'll say it again. I never said they didn't. In fact, I 100% agree that everyone has morals.

If you don't mind me asking, what have you actually done to help people?

A lot of things. I help solve people's problems, I loan people money, help out people in need, try to be nice to everyone from the most unpopular to the rather douchey, avoid doing anything that might hurt someones feelings or hinder them in some way, etc. etc.

It doesn't matter. I appealed to the lowest common denominator. If you were selfish you would care for that reason. If you weren't selfish you would assert reasons to care yourself. If you can give someone who is selfish a reason to care which makes them integrate into society cooperatively it doesn't matter whether they do it because of long term benefit or not. I wouldn't call it manipulation either, manipulation is biasing someone's knowledge in order to get them to choose your point of view. Manipulation works against cooperation if the victim understands what you're doing so personally I avoid it. Persuasion is simply presenting the truth and allowing the person to come to terms with it.

Truth is, at the most basic animalistic level cooperation is better than non cooperation. All higher animals develop it. Mammals owe their success to it. A pair of animals working together survive much better than a single animal working together. Humans on the other hand seem to have an ideal population group/community group size of about 1000 humans, of those 1000 humans humans typically form friendship (part of your direct social network) with upwards of 100. See dunbars number. Humans are probably the only animal who makes understanding and cooperating with so many individuals a priority. Humans also generally spend around 50% of their day socializing and reinforcing those bonds.

Just think for a moment the number of social bonds you have, even those which you might consider unconditional. Without those bonds and those of your history how different of a man would you be? How much less would you have if you couldn't even act like you cared for others? (something sociopaths are quite aware of) Every interaction we make depends on our ability to cooperate from asking for coffee to asking for a job to getting into college. We can fake all of those interactions I suppose but to what end? Faking implies that at some point you'll stop but if stopping implies direct consequence to what you already have why stop at all?

So now, we've discovered the underlying goal which in itself is capable of providing you with motivation to cooperate. However the goal by itself doesn't provide you with a method to cooperate. This is where morals come in, they are the method to maximize human cooperation and success and to minimize human pain and the fragmenting of society. This is where some people choose to believe in god's morals, or some people choose to believe in philosophies. Whatever you choose however in understanding your goal and your method you can evaluate your effectiveness, with this knowledge we can objectively evaluate one method against another and come to the conclusion that there is a certain way, an objective morality if you will, to best achieve what you desire.

Which goes on to show, the question is not why should you care, but more importantly why wouldn't you? Masochism?

Well, you've made a good argument that I should cooperate for the benefit it brings, and should comply with morals because they aid cooperation; but ultimately this doesn't quite address the situation at hand. See, according to this argument I should utilize morals, but it doesn't lead me to a reason to care about them.

[Border Patrol]

However, I did not say any of these things you're tacking on. I did not say rightists don't have morals. I didn't say it was necessarily the right way forward. I didn't say they didn't want to make the world a better place. But the fact of the matter is, Leftists are joined by a single thread. Equality. Meaning Leftists need to be moralistic to exist, whereas while there are many moralistic rightists, there are certainly many that aren't.

You said it right here. Morality isn't quantifiable. So I would have to disagree.

[basics]

" I'm not saying the Left better than the Right, just that by nature the right has many who care only about themselves. The left might have some coincidentally, but it isn't a built in demographic like it is with the Right. "

nicoisbest,

I would have to refute that too. Since the masses of the left vastly outnumber the aristocrats of the right it follows that the greed of the most outweighs the greed of less.

[Phier]

I was more referring to myself.

Although, leftists are concerned with the well being of the majority, rightists are not. Leftists are typically more moralistic than rightists.

Perhaps the question isn't why do you care but why you feel you should meddle in others affairs as if you know best. I guarantee you are not a more 'moralistic' person than I am.

Charity is an individual thing. Give your time as you see fit but not so much it runs your life unless thats what you really want.

[Incontinenta Buttox]

I was more referring to myself.

Although, leftists are concerned with the well being of the majority, rightists are not. Leftists are typically more moralistic than rightists.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Most on the left don’t seem to understand right-of-centre thinking because they hold a mental caricature of centre-right and right-wing ideology in their minds, attributing malice to their opponents.

[Border Patrol]

Secure your own rights. The precedent it sets will allow others to secure theirs. Morals aren't limited to "the group", after all, what is the group but a collection of individuals?

I was more referring to myself.

Although, leftists are concerned with the well being of the majority, rightists are not. Leftists are typically more moralistic than rightists.

Bare assertion™
Simply because their morals are different than yours does not mean that they don't have them. And simply because you think their way is not the best way forward for everyone, doesn't mean they don't.
The fact that I'm not a communist doesn't make me blind to communists' intentions. They want to make the world a better place, I just don't think it's the right way forward.
Similarly, the widely hated neocons wish to spread democracy and Western Civilization to the world. They want to make the world a better place, you and I just don't think it's the right way forward.

[Elfdude]

Why. Do. I. Care?

Anything you want can be achieved more effectively and more efficiently via cooperation. At the most basic level of 'why you should care' the answer is you should care because it's better for you.

Pretty much it.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Anything you want can be achieved more effectively and more efficiently via cooperation. At the most basic level of 'why you should care' the answer is you should care because it's better for you.

Pretty much it.

but why should he care about himself?

If he's into existentialism I reccomend reading Friedrich Nietzsche, he'll learn a lot about the world and some psycology while he's at it.

And he'll also probably lose his communist views and become centre-right.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche

I do feel good helping people, but I can't help but feel that I might just be feeling good because of the power given through bonds (as Big War Bird said), and that I might feel better helping people for my own designs than for the sake of helping people.

Nietzsche developed the concept of the will to - for want of a better word - power. Essentially, we want to shape the world the way we want it. That doesn't mean you want to be the supreme king of the universe, it means that you want your dearest wishes to come true; that may be as simple as having a nice house, job and great wife. If you want people to happy, then through your will to power you will make it so - it's both selfish and altruistic.

"My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (its will to power) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ("union") with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on."

The stronger and more personally developed a person is, the more they shape the world to their will. An Ubermensch is essentially someone who has reached the apex of personal development and one for whom their imagination and reality are identicle. This is not a bad thing in that, if in an ubermensch's perfect world, people are happy, then they will be. Essentially it is humanistic self-perfection.

I hope you see where this heading - this sort of philosphy is fundamentally opposed to communism. Here are two quotes I'm sure will antagonize you, but ones whose truth can't be denied:

"To speak of just or unjust in itself is quite senseless; in itself, of course, no injury, assault, exploitation, destruction can be 'unjust,' since life operates essentially, that is in its basic functions, through injury, assault, exploitation, destruction and simply cannot be thought of at all without this character. One must indeed grant something even more unpalatable: that, from the highest biological standpoint, legal conditions can never be other than exceptional conditions, since they constitute a partial restriction of the will of life, which is bent upon power, and are subordinate to its total goal as a single means: namely, as a means of creating greater units of power. A legal order thought of as sovereign and universal, not as a means in the struggle between power complexes but as a means of preventing all struggle in general perhaps after the communistic cliché of Dühring, that every will must consider every other will its equal—would be a principle hostile to life, an agent of the dissolution and destruction of man, an attempt to assassinate the future of man, a sign of weariness, a secret path to nothingness."

"Who can attain to anything great if he does not feel in himself the force and will to inflict great pain? The ability to suffer is a small matter: in that line, weak women and even slaves often attain masterliness. But not to perish from internal distress and doubt when one inflicts great suffering and hears the cry of it — that is great, that belongs to greatness."

I really can't sum up Nietzsche's philosphy in one post but it's genius.

[black-dragon]

You care because that's how your brain is wired.

[Big War Bird]

Why. Do. I. Care?

In truth you don't care. If you really cared you would personally act upon it.There is nothing stopping you from giving your time and wealth to your cause. If you cared this would satisfy a desire improve the conditions of others. You would be happy and fulfilled. Instead your actual base motivation is power and it is expressing itself in a way you have been conditioned to accept, i.e. "caring" about social justice.

You are conflicted because you innately understand that the actions / intellectual efforts you have put forth have been to serve your actual goal (the aquisition of power) while you have let slide opportunity to achieve your outward, yet false goal.


But I could be wrong. Its really late here.

[Khassaki]

Why. Do. I. Care?

Caring makes you a human.

What you believe is irrelevant. I'm sure I have never seen Squiggle say a a thing I agree with, but that does not mean that i don't value his opinions, or think that he is not a good person.

In your case I would guess that your reasonably young and contemplating life. You need to find the spark that gives your life meaning. It might be a family, it might be going to work and doing a good job, it might be though God, or something else. Just stop pretending this is a universal question and not just you looking for an answer.

[Enemy of the State]

Although, leftists are concerned with the well being of the majority, rightists are not. Leftists are typically more moralistic than rightists.

I agree, if we view the spectrum a bit differently. http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/1_1/1_1_2.pdf
Essentialy libertarians, both individualist and collectivist are on the left, state socialists are in the middle because they have liberal ends but use illiberal means, anyone who defends the "old order" is on the right.

As for morality, well honestly I view anyone that doesn't accept the non-aggression principle as morally bankrupt.

[Gpower]

Why. Do. I. Care?

Because it makes you feel good if your actions benefiting other people. Or so you don't feel guilty for making other people feel bad.