Conquer Club

Of course there is no obligation to help others. But continuous rejection of societies norms will lead to society rejecting you.

Nietzsche was bang on with that comment.

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:Of course there is no obligation to help others. But continuous rejection of societies norms will lead to society rejecting you.

So we are in agreement.

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Nah, I still don't buy it. We do things because we want to, not because we ought to, and just because most or all people want something does not automatically mean that there is any 'ought' about it.

Then you likely missed the point, which was that what we call 'ought' can be seen merely as a restatement of what it is that people want to do. We ought to do that which helps people get what they want, not because of some special rules from God, but simply because it is what people want. The relevant question then is whether you are under any obligation to help other people get what they want. But that is a separate issue we can discuss if you like.

I'd assumed we were already discussing that question. What're thoughts on this one then?

Same thoughts as in the second paragraph of my post. That is, it depends on whether you understand obligation as something you are honor-bound to do to ensure that the cosmic scales of justice remain in balance (i.e. deontology), or whether obligation is merely a restatement of the principle that you should act in ways that satisfy the golden rule, because those types of actions tend to maximize societal benefit (i.e. consequentialism). I prefer the latter approach. If you believe that you should act in those ways because it will tend to maximize societal, and hence your own benefit, then the point of morality is simply that you should do that consistently rather than just picking arbitrary circumstances in which you will act that way.

There are many ways to derive the principle we're describing. It could range from the social contract approach, to the completely egoist approach that you only live by the golden rule because that happens to maximize your benefit in the long run, to the compromise approach I prefer which is that you should live by the golden rule merely because other persons have just as much autonomy as you. But, if you've chosen that principle to live by, then the relevant meaning of obligation is simply to live by that principle you've already chosen, and to do so consistently.

I abide by the notion of social contract. I don't see any other reason to subscribe to a code of behavior.

mrswdk wrote:

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:Of course there is no obligation to help others. But continuous rejection of societies norms will lead to society rejecting you.

So we are in agreement.

I don't agree with you and I reject your olive branch. Go jump in a polluted lake.

Go take some more acid you hippy.

Got any?

I hope it's liquid.....

TA1LGUNN3R,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Hyksos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_Papyrus

And 130 years? Do you have any .edu or online encyclopedia type source that claims the Gospels were not written in the first century?