NationStates Jolt Archive

I was listening to the usual talk radio show while driving yesterday, and one of the host mentioned this story about an apparently well off guy hiring homeless people to stand in line for the new PS3 for $100 a day plus food. Now that got me to thinking. This guy, wanted a PS3 (well several) so that he can re-sell them and make money, and since he didn't want to stand in line all day, he hired other people to do so for him, and he brought them food. I mean sure the guy only did it out of self interest, but maybe that isn't so bad? I mean honestly, when was the last time any one of us did anything that wasn't out of self interest? Maybe Self Interest isn't so bad, and isn't really selfish?

Who ever said self interest was bad?

Anyhow...whoever did that, if it suceeded, is an absolute genious and my new hero. I wish I had the kind of money to pull it off. Unfortunately, as much as I would like it, I don't have the $600 for a PS3, let alone the money for the homeless dude.

It's not as if everything is done out of self interest (this is my main problem with the philosophy of Objectivism).

This, of course, was done out of self interest. Was it bad? Not in the least. He got what he wanted, plus he helped out some needy people in the process.

I'm surprised the homeless people didn't run off with that guy's credit card...

It's not as if everything is done out of self interest (this is my main problem with the philosophy of Objectivism).

Ok, then name one thing that's not done out of Self Interest.

Personally, I believe that self interest plays at least a reasonable part in all the decisions we make. Thus, I see no reason for its stigmatization, and wish people would embrace its place in life,

I'm surprised the homeless people didn't run off with that guy's credit card...

I doubt he gave them his credit card, just hold his place in line.

I really dont see an issue with what hte person did.

Sure, he gets more out of it than the homeless people. there's always someone better off than the other in any transaction.

I'm sure the homeless people were very happy to get $100 a day and food for standing somewhere, they normally get less for more work (They do work quite hard).

If he paid more, it wouldn't have been worth it for him, less and it wouldn't be worth it for his 'employees'.

This is a beautiful example of self-interest helping the others involved.

Ok, then name one thing that's not done out of Self Interest.

...Helping others because you feel that they deserve better, without asking for anything in return?

This vile and depraved act only further convinces me of the immorality of selfishness.

You do not extract favors from the needy in trade for your aid. To do so is disgusting.

...Helping others because you feel that they deserve better, without asking for anything in return?

You end up feeling good about yourself and hopefully others would consider you a good person.

This vile and depraved act only further convinces me of the immorality of selfishness.

You do not extract favors from the needy in trade for your aid. To do so is disgusting.

So it's disgusting how your boss gives you money for your service at his company?

You end up feeling good about yourself and hopefully others would consider you a good person.

That fact that you see helping others as the kind of thing that makes you a good person is indicative of selflessness.

And plenty of people help others without caring what other people think of them.

Self-interest is sometimes good, and sometimes bad. Depending on it at all times is bad.

Ok, then name one thing that's not done out of Self Interest.
Donating a lung.

Self interest isn't inherently bad, and in fact it's essential to survival. There are people who deny this. The word for them is ignorant.

This vile and depraved act only further convinces me of the immorality of selfishness.

You do not extract favors from the needy in trade for your aid. To do so is disgusting.

You're joking, right?

So it's disgusting how your boss gives you money for your service at his company?

I am not homeless. But, yes, wage-labor is indeed often a disgusting abomination; that is why I support abolishing it.

You're joking, right?

Nope.

Self-interest is sometimes good, and sometimes bad. Depending on it at all times is bad.


Donating a lung.

Out of the hopes that you help another person, and that they may repay you and you may have made a new friend.

Out of the hopes that you help another person, and that they may repay you and you may have made a new friend.

Actually, the donations are often done anonymously.

This vile and depraved act only further convinces me of the immorality of selfishness.

You do not extract favors from the needy in trade for your aid. To do so is disgusting.

I fail to see what's so horrible about this.

He paid these guys to stand in line so he didn't have to. He also bought them food.

He helped them out. He gave them money and food for doing him a favor. Again, I'm failing to see what's really wrong with this... Are you suggesting that the homeless should have declined?

I am not homeless. But, yes, wage-labor is indeed often a disgusting abomination; that is why I support abolishing it.

Umm, what social class are you? Are you working class, middle class, or high or the rich class? I'm just curious about your social status as well as your economic status.

I bet you $5 that you are a middle class person in the suburbs. Maybe white?

Actually, the donations are often done anonymously.

Well you still get that good feeling inside, and some people use it as bragging rights. So... yea self interest

Almost every transaction is one of self-interest for both parties. There is no such thing as being selfless, but there is selfish.

Going to the store to get some milk, it's you looking after yourself (You need milk) the store owner sells it for their self-interest (money) they got it from a dairy farmer who does it for his self-interest (Money again)

Everything is based around self-interest, it's an underlying principle in every society.
Communism is against it to some extent, but requires everyone to be equal in their efforts, something they'll only do because they get out of it (Self-interest).

There is no way to avoid it, and it cant be destroyed.

Are you suggesting that the homeless should have declined?

No. I am suggesting that aid of this kind should not be conditional.

As a blood donor and potential organ donor, I'd have to say I do it because of the feeling of helping, plus there's a certain amount of pressure to do it.

It may not be directly in my self-interest to be a donor, but I get the feeling I'd get treated better in some situations (Donors are more likely to receive blood did you know?)

Ok, then name one thing that's not done out of Self Interest.

Paying taxes.

Everything is based around self-interest, it's an underlying principle in every society.

Indeed. And that is why parents always throw their children out onto the street.

No. I am suggesting that aid of this kind should not be conditional.

In a perfect world, there would be no opportunity for this to happen, as the homeless would not have needed to accept the money or food, if there were even homeless.

In a perfect world there would have been no lines, and no opportunity for him to do his plan either.

I wish life was like that, but ntil then, you'll have to play the system.

No. I am suggesting that aid of this kind should not be conditional.

I still don't see what's wrong with it. Guy wanted some PS3 to re-sell. He didn't want to stand in line. So he hired some homeless guy to stand in line for him. He pays them $100 a day plus food. He gets his PS3's and the homeless people get money and food. Everyone wins.

Please tell me what is bad about that.

I was listening to the usual talk radio show while driving yesterday, and one of the host mentioned this story about an apparently well off guy hiring homeless people to stand in line for the new PS3 for $100 a day plus food. Now that got me to thinking. This guy, wanted a PS3 (well several) so that he can re-sell them and make money, and since he didn't want to stand in line all day, he hired other people to do so for him, and he brought them food. I mean sure the guy only did it out of self interest, but maybe that isn't so bad? I mean honestly, when was the last time any one of us did anything that wasn't out of self interest? Maybe Self Interest isn't so bad, and isn't really selfish?
You say this as if you've just recently changed your mind on self interest. You've been rather libertarian the whole time you've been posting on this forum.
Anyway, it's not like there are very many people who believe that self interest is always bad. More Socialist types tend to believe that it isn't flawless, but it's still inherently good. Even Communists, aside from the occasional Stalinist, admit that self interest has its place in society.
At any rate, you make a very convincing argument in favor of self interest, that it can often be redistributive. Not that it's likely to convince anyone who completely opposes self interest; they've probably heard it before and they're simply to ignorant to realize the existance of mutually benificial agreements.

Paying taxes.

I'd argue that too, what happens to you if you dont pay taxes?

Paying taxes.

You get government funded service in return and you don't get to go to jail and become Bubba's new boyfriend.

Wilgrove, what action that someone would do that would not be considered to be in their self-interest? Why would they do it?

Indeed. And that is why parents always throw their children out onto the street.

Sarcasm? They dont, because it's better for them most of the time not to do that. And when it's not, it will be later.

Who pays for your life in a nursing home?

Wilgrove, what action that someone would do that would not be considered to be in their self-interest? Why would they do it?

I dunno, I mean to be honest I don't really do anything unless it benefits me, even in the smallest of ways.

Yay for being brutally honest.

Indeed. And that is why parents always throw their children out onto the street.

They don't do this so much since the parent's own genetic interest would be risked unnecessarily. Plus, parents get a biologically ingrained imperative as well as sense of gratification from their children. This isn't selflessness.

I fail to see what's so horrible about this.

He paid these guys to stand in line so he didn't have to. He also bought them food.

He helped them out. He gave them money and food for doing him a favor. Again, I'm failing to see what's really wrong with this... Are you suggesting that the homeless should have declined?

Think about it.

This guy paid these homeless people, yes.
Thats all well and good.

However, hes paying them to purchase an item wich already has a very very limited number of units, so that he can re-sell them for exhorbitant amounts, and make a ton of cash.

This isnt just selfishness, its out and out greed, and using people who desperately need any kind of money they can get.

This guy is a king-sized asshole, and so is anyone who doesnt understand why I say such.

They dont, because it's better for them most of the time not to do that.

"Better" in what sense? Sure, the law prohibits it for a while - but it doesn't change the fact that parents can deprive their children of everything but basic necessties, and suffer no ill consequences for it.

Yet nevertheless most parents treat their children with love and compassion. Out of self-interest? Of course not.

I'd argue that too, what happens to you if you dont pay taxes?

You get government funded service in return and you don't get to go to jail and become Bubba's new boyfriend.

You pay taxes because you are required to.

How about..

Paying for your child's haircut.

Indeed. And that is why parents always throw their children out onto the street.

In what way is that self-interest?


Just because an act is done in self-interest does not mean its not a good act. There's no such thing as an act not done in self interest, because all actions are motivated by one thing: desire.
I defy you to name one act that is not motivated by desire.

Think about it.

This guy paid these homeless people, yes.
Thats all well and good.

However, hes paying them to purchase an item wich already has a very very limited number of units, so that he can re-sell them for exhorbitant amounts, and make a ton of cash.

This isnt just selfishness, its out and out greed, and using people who desperately need any kind of money they can get.

This guy is a king-sized asshole, and so is anyone who doesnt understand why I say such.

Guess I'm an asshole then.

You pay taxes because you are required to.

How about..

Paying for your child's haircut.

Because if you don't sooner or later your kid is going to run into a telephone pole, probably on a skateboard and be brain dead. So you get him a hair cut to avoid that.

Ok, then name one thing that's not done out of Self Interest.

People jumping on grenades to save comrades.

I dunno, I mean to be honest I don't really do anything unless it benefits me, even in the smallest of ways.

Then stop looking into a mirror, and realize that not everyone is as limited in motivation as you are.

They don't do this so much since the parent's own genetic interest would be risked unnecessarily.

That's absurd.

Plus, parents get a biologically ingrained imperative

Yeah... a biologically ingrained imperative to altruism.

Which is the whole point.

Because if you don't sooner or later your kid is going to run into a telephone pole, probably on a skateboard and be brain dead. So you get him a hair cut to avoid that.

Nah, not buying that. :p

Think about it.

This guy paid these homeless people, yes.
Thats all well and good.


With you so far.


However, hes paying them to purchase an item wich already has a very very limited number of units, so that he can re-sell them for exhorbitant amounts, and make a ton of cash.

So? Everyone does something that benefits them. If idiots are willing to pay $3,000 for a gaming system that only cost $600. Well, I'm reminded of the phrase "A fool and his money are soon parted." If people are willing to pay $3,000 because they don't want to stand in line for a gaming system that only cost $600, then that's their business.


This isnt just selfishness, its out and out greed, and using people who desperately need any kind of money they can get.

Greed, desire, self interest, whatever you want to call it, it's all the same thing. Human nature rarely do things for the benefits of others.


This guy is a king-sized asshole, and so is anyone who doesnt understand why I say such.

Yay I'm a king sized asshole. :D

In what way is that self-interest?

I was being sarcastic.

Just because an act is done in self-interest does not mean its not a good act.

No, it doesn't... but when the act is exploitative, as it is in this case, it does.

There's no such thing as an act not done in self interest, because all actions are motivated by one thing: desire.
I defy you to name one act that is not motivated by desire.

Mere equivocation. An act done out of selfishness is not the same thing as an act done of desire. Desiring someone else's well-being is almost definitionally altruism.

Because if you don't sooner or later your kid is going to run into a telephone pole, probably on a skateboard and be brain dead. So you get him a hair cut to avoid that.

Exscuse me, sir?

I think just dropped that really, really thin straw, over there.

Think about it.

This guy paid these homeless people, yes.
Thats all well and good.

However, hes paying them to purchase an item wich already has a very very limited number of units, so that he can re-sell them for exhorbitant amounts, and make a ton of cash.

This isnt just selfishness, its out and out greed, and using people who desperately need any kind of money they can get.

This guy is a king-sized asshole, and so is anyone who doesnt understand why I say such.

This guy is a greedy prick, but he's exploiting a situation that Sony gavbe him. If you had the chance to make big money that others are willing to pay, would you not?

If no-one was willing to buy the PS3's, he wouldn't sell them, he'd lose, he wouldn't do it again. No-one would.

Yes, they desperately need money, and they make decisions, their decision was that the money was morth worthwhile than doing other things for the money. Hence they were put in a much better situation.

Some of his profit goes to paying those homeless people. Think about this, he's forced the people who buy his over-priced (Extra overpriced that is) PS3's to donate to homeless people.

People jumping on grenades to save comrades.

In the hopes that their comrades will win the battle, war whatever and that their family and friends at home are kept safe.

I am not homeless. But, yes, wage-labor is indeed often a disgusting abomination; that is why I support abolishing it.

Disgusting because both parties excercise freedom? They both benefit. Is taht what's so abominable? You would rather that only one party benefited. I would ask that you end you hypocrasy and lead by example. Comit yourself to never except anything in exchange for what you do. Only live from acts of kindness of others. I think you would end up having a pretty miserable life. And right now you are advocating it for the rest of us.

Nah, not buying that. :p

Yea I admit it was a stretch. Maybe to make the product of your genetic code look good in front of other people, and in the process it makes you look good?

I dunno, I mean to be honest I don't really do anything unless it benefits me, even in the smallest of ways.

What I mean is if all actions are done out of self-interest, and couldn't be otherwise, then it becomes somewhat of a meaningless concept. There are a number of actions a person can perform.If all of these options are performed by self-interest, under your definition, if I choose to do them then nothing can be non-self-interested. Raping and murdering those homeless folks would be just as self-interested. So would giving his entire net worth to them.

Alot of these 'not in self interest' actions are about protecting your gene line, even if obscorely.

Grenade, your side has better man power than if you didn't. Hopefully less deaths, possibly including family.

Haircut, Child is more likely to propagate in this society based so much around looks. You'd be surprised what a haircut can do.

No. I am suggesting that aid of this kind should not be conditional.

This thinking is exactly why communism fails. Instead of creating wealth for two people you would end up making one more poor person. Next time around he wouldn't have any money to hand out. This way he would have more resources to employ more homeless people. Your way is just plain bad... not because the world is imperfect but because your plan for solving the problem of human condition sucks. The plan of the guy acting out of self interest is just better.

That's absurd.

Erm, which part? DNA? Biology? The concept of sexual reproduction?

And in what way is it absurd?

Yeah... a biologically ingrained imperative to altruism.

Only towards one's own children. You know - MY children. ME. SELF. INTEREST.

In the hopes that their comrades will win the battle, war whatever and that their family and friends at home are kept safe.

Caring about their comrades, their family, and their friends is pretty obviously selfless.

This guy is a greedy prick, but he's exploiting a situation that Sony gavbe him. If you had the chance to make big money that others are willing to pay, would you not?

No, I wouldn't - not when the only reason I make a profit is that I was faster to buy something I didn't want, so I could extort money from somebody else. That's simply exploitation.

Yes, they desperately need money, and they make decisions, their decision was that the money was morth worthwhile than doing other things for the money. Hence they were put in a much better situation.

So? The act undoubtedly had good consequences, but that does not adjust its moral character.

If he had truly cared for the welfare of the homeless, he would have not made his aid conditional on their acceptance of the deal. Since he does not, I cannot see this act as anything but exploitative and immoral.

Mere equivocation. An act done out of selfishness is not the same thing as an act done of desire. Desiring someone else's well-being is almost definitionally altruism.

This is a discussion of self-interest, not selfishness.

Wil, you really dont get it.

If I had stiood in line to buy one of these, and when I got to the counter, had said, "I'll take three!", I would have been refused.

Why?

Becuase each and every store got a VERY limited number of units.
This means that even people who had pre-ordered and already paid for it, didnt get thier PS3's on that day.

So this asshole pays some homeless guys to buy them for him, so he can get more of them.

Thats not only dishonest, its the utmost in greed, and out and out fucking rude.

Hes fucking over everyone EXCEPT the homeless people, who couldnt very likely refuse the money.

If you think to justify his actions, then I obviously cant stop you, I can only hope something equally crappy happens directly to you,.
Maybe you might learn something.

Thats why I say the guys is a King-Sized asshole.

I was being sarcastic.
I know. You've failed to answer my question.
Mere equivocation. An act done out of selfishness is not the same thing as an act done of desire. Desiring someone else's well-being is almost definitionally altruism.

This is a discussion of self-interest, not selfishness.

Yea I admit it was a stretch. Maybe to make the product of your genetic code look good in front of other people, and in the process it makes you look good?

My kid's hair is their's. If they want it to be long and messy, fine. If they want it to be short, fine. But, you know, I spend less money if they keep it long.. ;P

How about funerals?

You have them to respect the dead person, not to profit in anyway.

Erm, which part? DNA? Biology? The concept of sexual reproduction?

And in what way is it absurd?

Parents - at least the vast majority of parents - do not care for their children simply because they wish to see their genes passed on. To assert that that is the case is absurd.

Only towards one's own children.

Only examples of human altruism extend far beyond care for one's children.

You know - MY children. ME.

One's children and oneself are not equivalent.

As well say that "love your neighbor as yourself" is an incitement to selfishness.

In the hopes that their comrades will win the battle, war whatever and that their family and friends at home are kept safe.

Bullshit.

People do that, so that only ONE person dies from the grenade, instead of everyone.

Its pure altruism.

Something I suspect you know nothing about.

One's children and oneself are not equivalent.

As well say that "love [b]your[/i] neighbor as yourself" is an incitement to selfishness.

I find it amusing that you pounce on him for his typographical error, and make a mistake on the tags in the next sentence.

Irony pwns.

Caring about their comrades, their family, and their friends is pretty obviously selfless.
Bull. It increases the chance that their genetics will be passed on, plus it's programmed into you to look after family


No, I wouldn't - not when the only reason I make a profit is that I was faster to buy something I didn't want, so I could extort money from somebody else. That's simply exploitation.
Exploitation of who now, the people who buy it? They have numeroud choices, do it faster, wait longer for more. There will always be scalpers.


So? The act undoubtedly had good consequences, but that does not adjust its moral character.
I'd say that the consequences define it's moral character. Not quite ends justifies the means, but close. He puts himself first, and it helps others, and draws away from people who are willing to be part of this, they understand the consequences of buying off him.


If he had truly cared for the welfare of the homeless, he would have not made his aid conditional on their acceptance of the deal. Since he does not, I cannot see this act as anything but exploitative and immoral.

I doubt he cared for their welfare, he used them because it's the cheapest way. I think it's nice that they get out of it what they want (What they were willing to settle for at least)

I know. You've failed to answer my question.

Throwing one's children out of the house benefits the parents in terms of money, time, and energy.

This is a discussion of self-interest, not selfishness.

They have the same meaning, except connotationally.

Bullshit.

So you think that he had no desire to keep his friends and family back home safe.

Parents - at least the vast majority of parents - do not care for their children simply because they wish to see their genes passed on. To assert that that is the case is absurd.

I never implied it was a conscious 'wish' as you are. Nor did I state it was the only factor at play.

Only examples of human altruism extend far beyond care for one's children.

What you call altruism is most likely the result of ignoring mutual benefits. I mean, you ignored the mutual benefit in the original post, so it's only likely you deny it anywhere else in order to maintain your socialist worldview.

One's children and oneself are not equivalent.

Tell me, what do you think the purpose of sexual reproduction is?

Wil, you really dont get it.

If I had stiood in line to buy one of these, and when I got to the counter, had said, "I'll take three!", I would have been refused.

Yea right, comon, Wal-Mart and Sony revolves around money, as long as they keep on making money, no matter who's buying it and how much, then they don't care.

Becuase each and every store got a VERY limited number of units.
This means that even people who had pre-ordered and already paid for it, didnt get thier PS3's on that day.

So, they'll just try again tomorrow. See, this is how economic works. Someone see's a product that's selling very well. He thinks "Hey, I want in on some of that action." So he goes out and buy a bunch of the product and in return sells them admitted a higher price, but when people buy PS3 for $3,000 they are paying for it from the comfort of their own home. They are saying that paying $3,000 for a system from their own home rather than freezing their ass off in line (it's November it's cold) for the same product is a fair trade.

So this asshole pays some homeless guys to buy them for him, so he can get more of them.

Eh whatever works.

Thats not only dishonest, its the utmost in greed, and out and out fucking rude.

It's calling getting the most bang for your buck.

[qute]
Hes fucking over everyone EXCEPT the homeless people, who couldnt very likely refuse the money.[/quote]

Don't forget Wal-Mart, Sony, and the people who are buying from him. They all benefited from this.


If you think to justify his actions, then I obviously cant stop you, I can only hope something equally crappy happens directly to you,.
Maybe you might learn something.

Thats why I say the guys is a King-Sized asshole.

Eh, it probably has, I bid on product on Ebay all the time, and there's always the guy that bids at the last second locking my bid out. Doesn't really bother me, I know that the same product will be out there again and I can try my luck again. Hell even I've done some last minute bids.

My kid's hair is their's. If they want it to be long and messy, fine. If they want it to be short, fine. But, you know, I spend less money if they keep it long.. ;P

How about funerals?

You have them to respect the dead person, not to profit in anyway.

A few years ago we had this funeral for my grandpa, one family member didn't show up because he had other priorities. Well, he's now the black sheep of the family and is ignored by everyone. It would've been in his self interest to come, and to avoid that.

Bull. It increases the chance that their genetics will be passed on,

So?

plus it's programmed into you to look after family

Indeed. Altruism is natural.

Exploitation of who now, the people who buy it? They have numeroud choices, do it faster, wait longer for more.

Yes, but, obviously, I have already denied them one - buy it for the original price immediately.

I'd say that the consequences define it's moral character. Not quite ends justifies the means, but close.

This has nothing to do with "ends justify the means." What your argument is indicative of is something quite different - "means justify the ends."

it helps others

Purely incidentally.

and draws away from people who are willing to be part of this, they understand the consequences of buying off him.

Yes, but they did not desire him to buy the game for them. Most likely they wanted to buy it themselves, for the original price.

I doubt he cared for their welfare, he used them because it's the cheapest way.

Yes, exactly.

If you cannot see why that is immoral, I fear I cannot help you.

Throwing one's children out of the house benefits the parents in terms of money, time, and energy.
Right, because surviving years of imprisonment for neglect takes no time, energy and money, and worrying about the safety of the child you threw out takes no time or energy, and causes no stress. :rolleyes:

They have the same meaning, except connotationally.
No.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfishness

Those illustrate the difference better than I can.

I'll work at this piece by piece.

My kid's hair is their's. If they want it to be long and messy, fine. If they want it to be short, fine. But, you know, I spend less money if they keep it long.. ;P

How about funerals?

You have them to respect the dead person, not to profit in anyway.

Do you believe in afterlife? It's beneficial to you.
Also, of course it helps you 'let go' according to psychiatrists
.
Parents - at least the vast majority of parents - do not care for their children simply because they wish to see their genes passed on. To assert that that is the case is absurd.



Only examples of human altruism extend far beyond care for one's children.



One's children and oneself are not equivalent.

As well say that "love your neighbor as yourself" is an incitement to selfishness.

It's hardwired to look after your children for that very reason.

As far as you're concerned gentically (The part that controls most of your actions) Each child is one-half of you, but with more potential.
Bullshit.

People do that, so that only ONE person dies from the grenade, instead of everyone.

Its pure altruism.

Something I suspect you know nothing about.

That is part of it, in extreme circumstances, people will put a group before them. In a clear case as Dead-Alive, it will still take more than a 1:2 ratio for most people. They'll give their life for 20, but normally not for 2 or 3, even though it would be 'proper'.

I hope I'm not the only one who thinks everything should be done out of pure altruism, but not everything is motivated by self-interest.:eek:

What you call altruism is most likely the result of ignoring mutual benefits.

So what's the benefit for the person who's blown up by a grenade? What's the benefit for the person who gives her money and time to others, without expecting anything in return? What's the benefit for the person sacrificing her life for her family?

I mean, you ignored the mutual benefit in the original post

The mutual benefit is irrelevant.

Tell me, what do you think the purpose of sexual reproduction is?

Without a clarification of what you mean by "purpose," I'm not sure how to answer that question. I am not an Aristotelian.

Think about it.

This guy paid these homeless people, yes.
Thats all well and good.

However, hes paying them to purchase an item wich already has a very very limited number of units, so that he can re-sell them for exhorbitant amounts, and make a ton of cash.

This isnt just selfishness, its out and out greed, and using people who desperately need any kind of money they can get.

This guy is a king-sized asshole, and so is anyone who doesnt understand why I say such.
The homeless people need money, so let's take away one of the incentives to give them money. Sounds like an awesome plan. It would be nice if he would just give them money out of pure kindness. In reality, however, most wealthy people use a significant portion of their money for personal luxery. That's why it's so wonderful that, in the persuit of personal luxery, these people are sometimes naturally encouraged to give money to people who need it, in exchange for services such as this.

Thank you for addressing my arguments.


So?
Indeed. Altruism is natural.

So they dont really have a choice in that matter do they?


Yes, but, obviously, I have already denied them one - buy it for the original price immediately.
You reduced the number of people who can do that. Not denied them that option (Plus they ahd other ways of getting to do that)


This has nothing to do with "ends justify the means." What your argument is indicative of is something quite different - "means justify the ends."
Ends justifies the means it what I believe I was saying. It depends what you consider an end, and what you consider a means. Consequences I condier an ends, even if things happen afterwards. Moral Character is a purpose or motivation.


Purely incidentally.
I'm sure he knew, but yes, if it was cheaper to use something that didn't help others I'm sure he would have.


Yes, but they did not desire him to buy the game for them. Most likely they wanted to buy it themselves, for the original price.[?/QUOTE]
And they had that option anyway, the people who bought it off him WANTED TO.


[QUOTE=Soheran;11967191]
Yes, exactly.

If you cannot see why that is immoral, I fear I cannot help you.

It's not nice, but immoral? Only in some peoples opinions.

Right, because surviving years of imprisonment for neglect takes no time, energy and money, and worrying about the safety of the child you threw out takes no time or energy, and causes no stress. :rolleyes:

And in the days before prison and laws against neglect, parents threw their children into the street?

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfishness

Those illustrate the difference better than I can.[/QUOTE]

No difference I can tell, except that "enlightened self-interest" is a narrower category of selfishness.

Helping others solely for the purpose of deriving a benefit is no better a reflection on a person's moral character than killing them for the sake of deriving a benefit from it. The difference is merely in circumstances; in one case, selfishness calls for one course of action, in the other, it calls for another.

A few years ago we had this funeral for my grandpa, one family member didn't show up because he had other priorities. Well, he's now the black sheep of the family and is ignored by everyone. It would've been in his self interest to come, and to avoid that.
How was he to know the family would react that way?

And what did he need to do that made him miss the funeral?

And I don't think you understood what I was asking.
Do you believe in afterlife?
Nope.
It's beneficial to you.
Not really. :)
Also, of course it helps you 'let go' according to psychiatrists.

Hmm.. well.. I guess.

Before we bring Mother Teresa into this, Can anyone tell me her motivation?

I'll give you a clue, there are a lot of critics who dislike her.

So they dont really have a choice in that matter do they?

Um, yes, they do. They can always choose to suppress their natural instincts - for selfish reasons, for instance.

You reduced the number of people who can do that.

Yeah... thus denying the option to those who were "reduced."

Stop splitting hairs.

Ends justifies the means it what I believe I was saying. Consequences I condier an ends, even if things happen afterwards.

Consequences are effects. They are not ends.

Moral Character is a purpose or motivation.

"Purpose", "motivation", "aim" - they all mean basically the same as "end" in this respect.

And they had that option anyway,

No, it was denied to them by Sony and by people like the one Wilgrove cited.

(It feels rather weird to be discussing ethics in the context of Playstation 3...)

the people who bought it off him WANTED TO.

So?

It's not nice, but immoral? Only in some peoples opinions.

So?

In the hopes that their comrades will win the battle, war whatever and that their family and friends at home are kept safe.

I'm sorry. I still don't understand how it's in someone's self interest to blow themselves apart. The reason such actions are seen as heroic by the general population is precisely because they are selfless. My thoughts aside, feel free to argue to the contrary; you must have a pretty dim view of soldiers that sacrificed themselves in such a way then, since they're only doing it for selfish reasons, no? ;)

Another case in point is the recent example of the fellow who gave his only parachute to a young woman when the aircraft they were in suffered mechanical failure. It was in the news recently, I believe it was in the USA.

And in the days before prison and laws against neglect, parents threw their children into the street?
See "dark ages".
;)

No difference I can tell, except that "enlightened self-interest" is a narrower category of selfishness.
Just because you didn't bother to read the articles doesn't mean the difference isn't there. :rolleyes:

Helping others solely for the purpose of deriving a benefit is no better a reflection on a person's moral character than killing them for the sake of deriving a benefit from it.
Incorrect. If you help someone solely because it makes you feel good to help them, then you are a good person. Period.

The difference is merely in circumstances; in one case, selfishness calls for one course of action, in the other, it calls for another.
Yes, that is true. That's why people find giving food to a starving man to be appropriate in one situation, shooting a man about to make good on his threat to kill his children in another situation, and jumping on a grenade to be appropriate in yet another situation.

The homeless people need money, so let's take away one of the incentives to give them money.

No... let's just recognize that it's an incentive that appeals to selfishness, and means nothing about how good or bad selfishness is.

Um, yes, they do. They can always choose to suppress their natural instincts - for selfish reasons, for instance.
Difficult when you're doing it by instinct, but yes, I'd argue that rather than selfless they weren't being selfish


Yeah... thus denying the option to those who were "reduced."

Stop splitting hairs.
Miscount by a dollar when you have a dollar, miscount by a dollar when you have a thousand.
Everyone who was 'reduced' had the ability to get it. Unless he had one person per PS3 and they waited for a week of course.


Consequences are effects. They are not ends.
Effects yes, I'd liken them to ends, although that's semantics.


"Purpose", "motivation", "aim" - they all mean basically the same as "end" in this respect.
Again, semantics, I wouldn't call it an end, I'd call it a driving force.


No, it was denied to them by Sony and by people like the one Wilgrove cited.

(It feels rather weird to be discussing ethics in the context of Playstation 3...)
1. Sony was the main cause, but they have to look after their investment.
2. this is NSG, I thought you'd be used to it by now.



So?
So he's not doing them wrong if he's obliging their requests.

See "dark ages".

Human beings are still alive today, aren't we? Someone had to care for the babies.

Just because you didn't bother to read the articles doesn't mean the difference isn't there.

I actually did glance at them, but I've read them before, in prior discussions similar to this one. No need to waste my time.

Incorrect. If you help someone solely because it makes you feel good to help them, then you are a good person. Period.

I can agree with that - the fact that you feel good about helping others is indicative that you care about their welfare. But to help others so that they, or someone else, will provide you with something that will make you feel good (say, a monetary profit) does not make you a good person.

I'm sorry. I still don't understand how it's in someone's self interest to blow themselves apart. The reason such actions are seen as heroic by the general population is precisely because they are selfless. My thoughts aside, feel free to argue to the contrary; you must have a pretty dim view of soldiers that sacrificed themselves in such a way then, since they're only doing it for selfish reasons, no? ;)

Another case in point is the recent example of the fellow who gave his only parachute to a young woman when the aircraft they were in suffered mechanical failure. It was in the news recently, I believe it was in the USA.

What was their motivations?

I hate to do this, but it could be religious. You let a young woman survive instead of you? ~Picks up chance card~ Go straight to heaven, don't pass go, dont collect two hundred dollars.

You sacrificed yourself for 100 troops fighting for the right side? ~See above~

I'm sorry. I still don't understand how it's in someone's self interest to blow themselves apart. The reason such actions are seen as heroic by the general population is precisely because they are selfless. My thoughts aside, feel free to argue to the contrary; you must have a pretty dim view of soldiers that sacrificed themselves in such a way then, since they're only doing it for selfish reasons, no? ;)

Another case in point is the recent example of the fellow who gave his only parachute to a young woman when the aircraft they were in suffered mechanical failure. It was in the news recently, I believe it was in the USA.

I'd love to help, but since there's really no way of getting anything through, I'll just sit here and watch. :p

Difficult when you're doing it by instinct, but yes, I'd argue that rather than selfless they weren't being selfish

How is it not selfless?

Everyone who was 'reduced' had the ability to get it.

But he was faster than they were, so it's perfectly justified?

As well insist that might makes right. After all, those attacked have the "ability" to defend themselves.

2. this is NSG, I thought you'd be used to it by now.

Perhaps I should be. :p

So he's not doing them wrong if he's obliging their requests.

Yes, he is, because the request would not exist if it were not for people like him.

Human beings are still alive today, aren't we? Someone had to care for the babies.



I actually did glance at them, but I've read them before, in prior discussions similar to this one. No need to waste my time.



I can agree with that - the fact that you feel good about helping others is indicative that you care about their welfare. But to help others so that they, or someone else, will provide you with something that will make you feel good (say, a monetary profit) does not make you a good person.


1. There were systems set up for abandoning children, look it up.
2. Not touching this one, this is between you and the other person.
3. You only feel good from monetary profit? I feel good for doing something nice for someone.

What was their motivations?

I hate to do this, but it could be religious. You let a young woman survive instead of you? ~Picks up chance card~ Go straight to heaven, don't pass go, dont collect two hundred dollars.

You sacrificed yourself for 100 troops fighting for the right side? ~See above~

It could be, but since one cannot be certain about religious truth, that's a pretty big gamble to make. Without being certain, I still don't think such actions can be described as acting out of self-interest.

How is it not selfless?

But he was faster than they were, so it's perfectly justified?

As well insist that might makes right. After all, those attacked have the "ability" to defend themselves.

Perhaps I should be. :p

Yes, he is, because the request would not exist if it were not for people like him.

I love your arguments, they're among the few worth replying to.

1. See my previous statement on possible motives for doing it.
2. Considering they had the opportunity to be faster than that even, yes.
3. Considering they are not given the chance or equal grounds, no.
4. HUNGRY HUNGRY HIPPOS
5. So he created a market for something he wanted to sell, Is that only allowed if a corporation does it?

I was listening to the usual talk radio show while driving yesterday, and one of the host mentioned this story about an apparently well off guy hiring homeless people to stand in line for the new PS3 for $100 a day plus food. Now that got me to thinking. This guy, wanted a PS3 (well several) so that he can re-sell them and make money, and since he didn't want to stand in line all day, he hired other people to do so for him, and he brought them food. I mean sure the guy only did it out of self interest, but maybe that isn't so bad? I mean honestly, when was the last time any one of us did anything that wasn't out of self interest? Maybe Self Interest isn't so bad, and isn't really selfish?

Most people are not of the opinion that self-interest is bad. Just like most people aren't of the opinion that our country does not need a functioning military, that "brown people" aren't able to govern themselves, or that gay people should be allowed to fuck kids.

Those are just strawmen.

Self interest is fine. It's when self-interest is pursued to the detriment of others. Making a really good video-game system so that lots of people want to buy it... good.

Making it in limited supply so that people will pay hundreds of dollars more than the object is worth and will do all sorts of crazy things (like attract armed robbers who know that a long line of people each carrying about 600 dollars have gathered in one place) is bad.

Producing energy so that our economy can run, and doing it efficiently so that you can turn a profit... good.

Cutting overhead by cutting safety measures and causing a drastic increase in mineshaft explosions... bad.

See how that works?

It could be, but since one cannot be certain about religious truth, that's a pretty big gamble to make. Without being certain, I still don't think such actions can be described as acting out of self-interest.

Without knowing their actual motivations, I feel it's wrong to label what they've done according to any moral scale. As I've said, I didn't call it selfish, or in self-interest, just not selfless.

1. There were systems set up for abandoning children, look it up.

Of course there were. They exist today too. But this doesn't help you, because they were not sufficient to handle all the children that survived. The vast majority of children were cared for, altruistically, by their parents.

Also, why do you think those systems existed? Because of human altruism.

3. You only feel good from monetary profit? I feel good for doing something nice for someone.

You completely missed the point.

What I am saying is that while it's true that helping others to feel good about yourself is indicative of caring for others, and is thus an act motivated by altruism (though less purely so than a selfless act done for its own sake), helping others so that you can secure something else (say, a monetary profit) so that you can feel good about that (rather than about helping others) is not.

Human beings are still alive today, aren't we? Someone had to care for the babies.
First of all, you said children, not babies. And, there's still the self-interest involved with human instinct: if parents threw their children out, they would be stressed about their well-being. Thus, they would take care of them, because they would feel bad if they didn't.

I can agree with that - the fact that you feel good about helping others is indicative that you care about their welfare. But to help others so that they, or someone else, will provide you with something that will make you feel good (say, a monetary profit) does not make you a good person.
Does not change the fact that a good action is a good action, despite motive.

Most people are not of the opinion that self-interest is bad. Just like most people aren't of the opinion that our country does not need a functioning military, that "brown people" aren't able to govern themselves, or that gay people should be allowed to fuck kids.

Those are just strawmen.
Very strawmen, Side note: I'm sure if you counted the amount of people who think it's wrong for "gay people to fuck kids" And counted the amount who tihnk it's wrong for "people to fuck kids" You'd find it roughly equal ;)


Self interest is fine. It's when self-interest is pursued to the detriment of others. Making a really good video-game system so that lots of people want to buy it... good.

Making it in limited supply so that people will pay hundreds of dollars more than the object is worth and will do all sorts of crazy things (like attract armed robbers who know that a long line of people each carrying about 600 dollars have gathered in one place) is bad.

Producing energy so that our economy can run, and doing it efficiently so that you can turn a profit... good.

Cutting overhead by cutting safety measures and causing a drastic increase in mineshaft explosions... bad.

See how that works?

I understand this part, And if you look (I'm sure you know this, I just point stuff out, it's a hobby) Most of these bad actions are done by corporations. First one: Sony's fault (I believe that it's sony's fault that this guy did that essentially)
Second: Evil corporation XXXXXX's fault.

I think, as a rule, corporations are evil. But alot of 'evil people' are produced when the corporations do this, take away Sony encouraging this man to do that, and he wouldn't.

Without knowing their actual motivations, I feel it's wrong to label what they've done according to any moral scale. As I've said, I didn't call it selfish, or in self-interest, just not selfless.

Irrespective of whether such actions are selfless or not, they are seen as such by the general public, else they would hardly be considered heroic.

1. See my previous statement on possible motives for doing it.

Which one? I don't see any such statement in your last post.

2. Considering they had the opportunity to be faster than that even, yes.

Why make it more difficult for them?

3. Considering they are not given the chance or equal grounds, no.

You have no knowledge as to whether or not there were "equal grounds."

5. So he created a market for something he wanted to sell,

He and people like him limited supply so as to make a profit from the demand of others.

Is that only allowed if a corporation does it?

No, it is wrong when they do it too.

if parents threw their children out, they would be stressed about their well-being.

Yeah - that means they care about their well-being, that is, they are altruistic.

Does not change the fact that a good action is a good action, despite motive.

That is not a fact, that is nonsense.

The difference between good and bad acts would, by that doctrine, be reduced to circumstance (irrelevant to personal responsibility) as opposed to motives (relevant to personal responsibility.)

Of course there were. They exist today too. But this doesn't help you, because they were not sufficient to handle all the children that survived. The vast majority of children were cared for, altruistically, by their parents.

Also, why do you think those systems existed? Because of human altruism.



You completely missed the point.

What I am saying is that while it's true that helping others to feel good about yourself is indicative of caring for others, and is thus an act motivated by altruism (though less purely so than a selfless act done for its own sake), helping others so that you can secure something else (say, a monetary profit) so that you can feel good about that (rather than about helping others) is not.

True, they dont exist today to the same extent they used to, but yes, majority of babies and children are cared for by parent(s) (/Parental figure(s)). Human nature, something that can't be considered in an argument for and against selfish/selfless/Self-interest.

I agree that one is definately better than the other. And I mainly practice the first, helping others because you h elped them. But are you neglecting the possiblity of Karma here? If you got money, you wouldn't reap other benefits.

Human nature, something that can't be considered in an argument for and against selfish/selfless/Self-interest.

Why not?

But are you neglecting the possiblity of Karma here? If you got money, you wouldn't reap other benefits.

Possibly, but that is irrelevant to the principle. As long as you are doing it for money or those "other benefits," you are not acting morally.

Which one? I don't see any such statement in your last post.
I apologise, not directly previous, rather the one in response to the parachuter mainly.


Why make it more difficult for them?
Because that's how it works.


You have no knowledge as to whether or not there were "equal grounds."
Assuming the attacker wins (/is better off than the victim) It's safe to say it wasn't fair.


He and people like him limited supply so as to make a profit from the demand of others.
That's exactly what sony did.


No, it is wrong when they do it too.
we agree, I dont see you complaining as much when they do it though, or have I just missed those ones.


Yeah - that means they care about their well-being, that is, they are altruistic.

That is not a fact, that is nonsense.

The difference between good and bad acts would, by that doctrine, be reduced to circumstance (irrelevant to personal responsibility) as opposed to motives (relevant to personal responsibility.)


It would be unfair of me to argue for someone else. I'll leave them to that one.

Why not?
You dont see the issue?
If it's hardwired to do something, it wasn't a choice, it's wrong to judge people for something that wasn't a choice. I'll keep rewording it until you understand my arguement and combat it with something.


Possibly, but that is irrelevant to the principle. As long as you are doing it for money or those "other benefits," you are not acting morally.

Alot of people believe in Karmic Retribution, either in afterlife, current life, or previous lives.

"What goes around, comes around" Is followed by the majority of the world. I dont see how you can argue that it is not moral to work for benefits, even intangible ones.

I apologise, not directly previous, rather the one in response to the parachuter mainly.

I can't find it.

Because that's how it works.

It's not how it has to work.

Assuming the attacker wins (/is better off than the victim) It's safe to say it wasn't fair.

I could use exactly the same logic with regard to the PS3.

That's exactly what sony did.

Indeed.

we agree, I dont see you complaining as much when they do it though, or have I just missed those ones.

Someone thinking I am not a harsh enough critic of corporations... this is a first.

I have indeed not attacked Sony on this thread, or even on this forum, for this policy of theirs; it is typical behavior for the institutions that we for some weird reason choose to put in charge of the production and distribution of goods. But that does not mean that I do not oppose it, and I might have objected if someone had defended the policy the way Wilgrove defended the actions of the person.

You dont see the issue?
If it's hardwired to do something, it wasn't a choice,

Yes, it was. They didn't have to go along with their natural instinct.

Alot of people believe in Karmic Retribution, either in afterlife, current life, or previous lives.

"What goes around, comes around" Is followed by the majority of the world.

Yes, and that is a wise point of view, but it is not a morally worthy motive for committing an act.

I'd rather go with "love your neighbor as yourself."

I dont see how you can argue that it is not moral to work for benefits, even intangible ones.

Because the good consequences are purely incidental; the person doesn't care. If it benefitted him to murder them instead of help them, he would do that instead.

No... let's just recognize that it's an incentive that appeals to selfishness, and means nothing about how good or bad selfishness is.
I actually agree completely. Some Capitalists may use this sort of example to show that "greed is good." I don't agree with that sentiment. Greed isn't necessarily good. The essence of Capitalism is that, although many people are at least a little bit selfish, we can use that greed to achieve very good results for individuals and for society and all we have to do is make sure that all exchanges are voluntary.

The argument "Everything is self-interest" is pretty simplistic really. Lot's of things are obviously self interest. The guy payed the homeless people to queue for him so he makes heaps of cash. Self Interest. Buying lunch so you don't starve. Self interest, etc.

Everyone throws up the What about altruistic actions. The answer is It makes you feel good, thus you do the altruistic thing. As it makes you feel good it is self-interest. You had an interest in feeling good.
The very similar argument is not doing the altrustic thing makes you feel so bad that you do the altruistic thing. Self interest. You want to avoid feeling bad.

For example. Perhaps the man who gave his parachute away decided he couldn't live with the guilt of letting the woman die. Self Interest.

In all this world of equal opportunity, he is a fool, unless she was younger than him, but that's a different thread entirely [/trolling]:p

The man who jumped on the grenade. He had the capacity to save multiple lives. He couldn't live with the guilt if he saved his own skin and let them die. Self interest. Most likely he couldn't save himself anyway (He's close enough to dive on the grenade) and that is the smartest action anyway. But this way he gets remembered as a hero. Self interest.

This argument is really just an exercise in Sophistry, in my personal opinion, but I'm trying to sum it up, because some people don't seem to get it. It also means Self interest is not a bad thing sometimes.

The argument "Everything is self-interest" is pretty simplistic really. Lot's of things are obviously self interest. The guy payed the homeless people to queue for him so he makes heaps of cash. Self Interest. Buying lunch so you don't starve. Self interest, etc.

Everyone throws up the What about altruistic actions. The answer is It makes you feel good, thus you do the altruistic thing. As it makes you feel good it is self-interest. You had an interest in feeling good.
The very similar argument is not doing the altrustic thing makes you feel so bad that you do the altruistic thing. Self interest. You want to avoid feeling bad.

For example. Perhaps the man who gave his parachute away decided he couldn't live with the guilt of letting the woman die. Self Interest.

In all this world of equal opportunity, he is a fool, unless she was younger than him, but that's a different thread entirely [/trolling]:p

The man who jumped on the grenade. He had the capacity to save multiple lives. He couldn't live with the guilt if he saved his own skin and let them die. Self interest. Most likely he couldn't save himself anyway (He's close enough to dive on the grenade) and that is the smartest action anyway. But this way he gets remembered as a hero. Self interest.

This argument is really just an exercise in Sophistry, in my personal opinion, but I'm trying to sum it up, because some people don't seem to get it. It also means Self interest is not a bad thing sometimes.
You are correct in asserting that all actions are motivated by self interest. If a person does something to help another, for example giving food to a homeless man without asking anything in return, she/he chooses to do that because it helps her/him achieve personal happiness in knowing that the homeless person will not starve tonight.

However, the statement that all actions are motivated by self interest is somewhat meaningless. Because self interest can be any goal or desire whatsoever, the statement is effectively the same as all actions are motivated by something. That really doesn't tell us any more than a=a.

There is a real difference in the kinds of motivations that lead to a businessperson to seek monetary profit, and the kinds of motivations that lead a philanthropist to give away millions of dollars to charity. The difference isn't that the latter isn't motivated by personal happiness. Rather, it is that the former seeks personal happiness in fulfilling her/his own needs, while the latter looks to achieve happiness in helping others acheive their personal happiness. The latter is always concerned with her/his own happiness, but at the same time, she/he is naturally concerned with the happiness of others. That is the essence of altruism.

Furthermore, I think that you really miss the beauty of Capitalism if you refuse to recognize the difference in altuistic actions and purely selfish ones. By making all exchanges voluntary, we force even the most selfish individuals to concern themselves with the happiness of others, because in a system of voluntary exhanges one person cannot expect to gain anything from another without yielding something in return. So, despite an inclination to overlook the happiness of others, a sefish businessperson must ask her/himself, "what will make my customers and my employees happy?"

Furthermore, I think that you really miss the beauty of Capitalism if you refuse to recognize the difference in altuistic actions and purely selfish ones.
I was just pointing out what the argument was. I don't believe in it as anything more than a debating exercise, but I do miss the "beauty of capatilism" for other reasons.
By making all exchanges voluntary, we force even the most selfish individuals to concern themselves with the happiness of others, because in a system of voluntary exhanges one person cannot expect to gain anything from another without yielding something in return. So, despite an inclination to overlook the happiness of others, a sefish businessperson must ask her/himself, "what will make my customers and my employees happy?"
Tell the sweat shop worker, the prostitute, the beauty of capitalism. I understand I am doing a thread hijack, so I shall post no more on this, but I couldn't let that slide past.

Tell the sweat shop worker, the prostitute, the beauty of capitalism. I understand I am doing a thread hijack, so I shall post no more on this, but I couldn't let that slide past.
I don't think we're off topic at all here. If you think we are off topic, feel free not to respond.

If the agreement to provide sweat shop labor or sexual services was mutual and honest (Sadly, this second condition isn't always the case. It is, however, a requirement in capitalism, even if it is often ignored by people who claim to support capitalism.), then it only makes sense to believe that it probably improved the lives of all parties involved. The only problem is that the sweat shop worker entered the agreement in a very bad situation. Clearly, however, the agreement itself did not cause the previous situation of the worker. In fact, it mitigated this situation. You try to tell the sweat shop worker that the one method he/she has for feeding his/her family should be illegal.

Out of the hopes that you help another person, and that they may repay you and you may have made a new friend.
So it's on the same moral level as enslaving someone for your own self-interest?

Umm, what social class are you? Are you working class, middle class, or high or the rich class? I'm just curious about your social status as well as your economic status.

I bet you $5 that you are a middle class person in the suburbs. Maybe white?
Bullshit, Wilgrove. The working class have always been the most socialist of all groups.

I can't believe that you call yourself Christian, but glorify not helping other people "unless it's in my interests".

No. I am suggesting that aid of this kind should not be conditional.
That's true. Soheran, you should totally consider becoming Christian! This moral issue is lost on a lot of people, even some who claim to be Christian (Wilgrove).

Paying taxes.
Taxes are most definitely in one's interests, since you get services in return.

So it's on the same moral level as enslaving someone for your own self-interest?

If I'm paying someone to do a service or make a product for me, then how is that enslaving?


Bullshit, Wilgrove. The working class have always been the most socialist of all groups.

I can't believe that you call yourself Christian, but glorify not helping other people "unless it's in my interests".

Eh just being realistic. At least I admit that my actions are affected by the decision of how they'll affect me and how they'll benefit me. Let me know when your ready to get off that high horse of yours and come to a realization that you do the same thing too.