Originally posted by Eggs
Why would it matter if they were short-sighted? What exactly is this long run you are speaking of? You have 80 years here... 100 on the top side. Do you really think 60 years is all the much time that someone should care about it? Come on Mordred, I know you're old enough to know the time that you're alive is short.
HELL YES 60 years is something to care about...especially considering the idea that it is the only time that you will have in any way. The time you stay alive represents the sum total of time for your existance. Even by your own arguments self-preservation should be an extremely high priority. How can someone be acting in a truly selfish way when they are effectively sacrificing the continued existance of their self?
As to the idea of a social contract, why should a person care about society? Because society will reward them? I've seen lots of people that society has "rewarded" and I dont care to follow their footsteps.
A society is absolutely essential for an individual to maximize their productivity in any endeavor (health, wealth, happiness, etc.). Would you choose to live a life totally isolated, cut off from any form of society? You could not even approach anything resembling the prosperity of whatever your current lifestyle is. Think about it...personally I do not do any work that goes into producing my own food, water, clothing, or shelter. I pay other members of my society to do this for me. This arrangement is mutually beneficial as it allows them to use this money to secure goods and services themselves...and allows me to do a job that I enjoy and have time for recreation instead of having to worry about killing my next meal.
As a society prospers so do the bulk of individuals within that society. It is almost always in an individuals best interests for their society to be a prosperous one.
But truly, is not a rapist or a murderer fulfilling his values in doing what he does?
That would depend on whether or not the rapist or murderer realizes what they are doing is wrong. Most of them do. Those that don't are usually referred to as sociopaths.
Looking at reletavism I dont think I'd have the right to say "Thats wrong." Because who am I to determine what wrong is?Society can say "that was wrong" but it doesnt have the meaning that we associate with it, rather it takes the meaning of "we as a group dont like that and will punish you for it."
What exactly is this meaning that you refer to? I don't see how this is really any different than a theistic view of morality. That after all just takes the meaning of "God doesn't like that and will punish you for it." Does it not? All I see is that the authority has been transfered from a god to the society that actually has to operate under these values.
I find your last statement interesting though. "Some value systems are simply better than others." Now, who is the judge of that?
For lack of a better word...history. Societies with superior value systems will prosper and survive. Societies with inferior value systems will falter and cease to exist, eventually being supplanted by societies with different values.
You can die for whatever you want, that doesnt make it romantic. If your name goes down in history you either just impressed people that it was important in some way or another. It never truly was in the scheme of things.
That was directed against your claim that without a god people should only value their own existance. People can easily justify, with good reason, adhering to certain values despite their very existance being threatened because of them.
