Ethics

You both like philosophy.

Stranger: so philosophy

You: yes

Stranger: im going to be upfront, im not formally educated in philosphy and i am unfamilar with much of the field

Stranger: with that being said

Stranger: what philosophical topic has caught your interest as of late?

You: do you like ethics, epistemology, metaphysics? (three main branches of philo)

You: poverty philosophy

Stranger: epistemology is interesting

Stranger: though i have my own ideas of what can be known and how

Stranger: and im afraid it may be over simplified

Stranger: ethics

Stranger: on the other hand

Stranger: well

Stranger: what is ethics?

Stranger: if ethics is synonymous with morality

Stranger: which i doubt it is

Stranger: then i would say there is no point to discussing morality/ethics because there is no absolute morality

Stranger: there is only a goal

Stranger: and methods used to reach that goal

Stranger: sorry for my word vomit

Stranger: but what do you think?

You: well, more of just trying to understand

You: of course there's a point to discuss

You: even when there's not an absolute answer

You: it's like the whole point of philosophy itself

Stranger: of course, but i dont think anything is inherently right or wrong, it is only successful or unsuccessful in achieving a goal

You: as a tangent, you may find something interesting here:

You: http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/4506/adam-uraynar?tab=favorites

Stranger: k searching it up now

You: killing someone is wrong

Stranger: why?

You: why do you get to choose if they die?

You: you don't

Stranger: but why is that inherently wrong?

Stranger: other than an emotional feeling

You: because it's not you who get's to do that, you do not have the right to

Stranger: who decided wether or not i have that right?

You: I could also bring up the categorical imperative here, but I won't

You: the society you choose to be a part of

Stranger: yes, it is wrong because someone says it is wrong

You: not neccissarily

Stranger: or at least that is how it appears on the surface

You: you're committing a fallacy here

You: slippery slope

Stranger: how so?

You: or...

You: trying to think of the word

Stranger: strawman?

You: no, but it's similar to slippery slope

Stranger: show me where you think im wrong

Stranger: im curious

You: it's kind of like exaggerating something to the point it's not

You: I'd have to look at a list of fallacies, but I don't care to make that much effort

Stranger: but what did i exaggerate?

You: kind of...

You: similarity

Stranger: all i said is that killing is not inherently wrong, it is only wrong according to society

You: well, it'd only be you without society

You: well, let me say this: mutual understanding (in place of "someone says it's wrong")

Stranger: so if the majority of a society says something is morally acceptable or not, does that make it so/

Stranger: ?

You: no

Stranger: so how do you arrive at the idea that killing is inherently wrong?

You: you're using power to end someone who for you to decide to end is not right

Stranger: why not?

Stranger: you are just restating the statement

You: forcing power over someone

Stranger: but why is that wrong?

You: they don't want it

Stranger: and why should i care what they want?

You: it's not a matter if you should care, but I guess I will have to argue that point

You: so, we're back to "mutual understanding"

You: can I get off that easily?

Stranger: well, but then that shows my original point

You: ya know, you don't shit on my car, I don't shit on yours

Stranger: that things are only right or wrong in relation to a goal

Stranger: but, they are not inherently wrong

You: what goal does killing someone have?

Stranger: no, not killing someone has a goal

Stranger: which is

Stranger: to have society which can function

Stranger: and you will benefit from

Stranger: you said it yourself

Stranger: the goal

Stranger: is mutual understanding

You: hey, I don't have a lot of time. want to dialogue about robin hood ethics?

Stranger: sure

Stranger: im not familiar

Stranger: but

Stranger: id be glad to talk about it

You: pretty much what it sounds like

Stranger: steal form rich give to poor kinda hitng?

You: yep

Stranger: see, but my view of ethics is shaped by our previous convorsation

Stranger: its very hard to explain

Stranger: but, what it comes down to is that I am selfish

Stranger: so are you

Stranger: you dont do anything that doesnt benefit you

Stranger: honestly i havent thought about ethics much past that because it all because trivial

Stranger: if it serves my interests

Stranger: then i will consider it ethical

Stranger: otherwise i will consider it otherwise

You: is this similar to some kind of philosophical thought or school?

Stranger: hmmm, im not sure

Stranger: im sure someone else put a name to it

Stranger: at some point in history

Stranger: but this is just my thoughts

You: I understand

You: pdx.edu/sysc/sites/www.pdx.edu.sysc/files/altruism_npc_0.pdf

Stranger: ahh yes

Stranger: i dont think alrtuism exists

You: exactly why there are levels of altruism

Stranger: ooh i see

You: with the first not being an actual form

Stranger: i just read that

You: of altruism

Stranger: so yeah, i think people do things that will benefit others more than it does themselves

Stranger: but they will ALWAYS only do things if the benefits to themself outweigh the cost to themself

You: I really want to read more into this, more about how we don't do it from self interest (because it seems that when we think about it, and philosophise, that's where we go wrong...or what I mean is, we don't all what's on the table)

Stranger: i think it is impossible to do things NOT out of self interest

Stranger: And i just had a thought

Stranger: perhaps

You: didn't you see the chart on page 2?

Stranger: the lack of pure altruism is related to how we define the self

Stranger: ill take a look

Stranger: one sec

Stranger: okay yeah i see it

You: but it seems to have a bias towards Buddhism ("Being Altruism")

Stranger: hmmmm

Stranger: Perhaps it is arrogant of me, but i really feel like the chart is an overcomplication of things

Stranger: for me

Stranger: the most important aspects are the binary ones

Stranger: the yes/no or black/white

Stranger: so when i think "is it possible to be altruistic?"

You: what?!

Stranger: i come to the conclusion that it is impossible to be truely altruistic

Stranger: then

You: it seems like you're saying it's best to do black and white thinking

Stranger: well, its actually kind of grey

Stranger: ahah

Stranger: but

You: I sort of get what you mean

Stranger: i mean to really dig deep into the structure of reality and the self, you have to think in terms of yes or no

Stranger: however

Stranger: there are many different colors of grey within those yes's and no's

Stranger: idk

Stranger: it is just something that i have noticed to be helpful when seeking knowledge

Stranger: and truth about anything

Stranger: because this way i can lay out a rudimentary structure

Stranger: and then once tht structure is laid, then i can worry about details

You: the truth is never pure and rarely simple --Wilde

Stranger: you know what i mean? like do the rough work first and then tune it into shape

Stranger: like if i were to sculpt a statue, i would first cut out the block that i want to work with

Stranger: so as to not overcomplicate things

Stranger: and then

Stranger: from that block

Stranger: i would chisel out the statue

You: yes, I suppose I understand better

Stranger: so the chart of altruism

Stranger: i see that as part of the rock that is outside the block that i am working with

Stranger: i can cut that out to really focus in on what matters

Stranger: anyway

Stranger: my brain hurts

Stranger: so ill let you talk to someone else now haha

Stranger: c ya later!