The Only Rule is Don't Get Caught

[The Sum of Awe]

Since selfish and empathetic tend to be on opposite side of a scale, what are you? How can you not be one or the other?
Or to put it another way, it's empathy that generally causes a person to become less selfish since we all start out totally self centered. Without empathy how do you become not selfish?

Logically I see people's ethical opinions as unimportant and the complete lack of value, why would I see mine any different? Which is to say, I don't necessarily limit myself.

Lack of empathy for their ethics doesn't indicate that I hate everyone, it indicates that their ethical boundaries are not to be forced on me.

Why is empathy pointless? Empathy has a huge impact on the world, just as selfishness does. Empathy is highly motivational and guides action. So how can it be pointless?

It has a huge impact on the world. As in this unimportant, meaningless rock?

You don't seem to find importance in human action. Our attitudes influence the world, even the smallest actions. So how can you say these things are pointless? Unless you find no value in the results of life and the world. Are you a nihilist?

But do our actions affect the entire other side of the universe?

About the immaturity, you evidently haven't studied psychology. In the field of psychology, empathy is one of the signs of psychological maturity. A person without empathy is considered either extremely immature (children or people who are slow to mature) or have an actual disorder.

I haven't. But please explain to me the proof for that.

I disagree. How do you define 'good'? People help others because of empathy. Don;t you call helping others 'good'?

That's why I said it has no OBJECTIVE good, it isn't good objectively, only relatively, which is only pointless.

I don't see how this is true. Who cares if the meaning of a word loses value if people are actually being empathetic?
Or have I misunderstood your meaning?

It's not just the word though, it's the entire concept.

If everyone loves everyone, love becomes meaningless. If everyone is super, nobody is. If everyone has gold, gold becomes unimportant.

 

[Riverwolf]

You're right, it was possibly a mistake to go by observation by using the word 'most' objectively. To be fair, most people I know have no empathy.

And every single person I know does.

You can say so, but it's not definite.

A "friend" is someone you like. Therefore, hating a friend is completely contradictory.

Speaking to each other does not mean I have interest in your ethical opinions, sometimes a robber talks to the banker.

Heh. Not what I meant.

We have the ability to speak to each other at all, because we're on the internet, a piece of technology with the first goal of allowing people to interact with each other across large distances, doing so. Look at the number of social network sites, sites that aren't meant as social networks yet have large, thriving communities. Look at the fact that high schoolers form miniature tribes around a specific interest, and in some instances that culture places considerable status on the amount of friends someone has.

We're just as strong a social species as any other great ape, because we empathize with those we associate the most with. Having little empathy for someone halfway across the planet does not mean having no empathy whatsoever.

 

[Riverwolf]

That's why I said it has no OBJECTIVE good, it isn't good objectively, only relatively, which is only pointless.

Pointless relative to the Andromeda Galaxy does not mean pointless to the person across the street.

 

[Madhuri]

Logically I see people's ethical opinions as unimportant and the complete lack of value, why would I see mine any different? Which is to say, I don't necessarily limit myself.

Lack of empathy for their ethics doesn't indicate that I hate everyone, it indicates that their ethical boundaries are not to be forced on me.

This is confusing me. Lack of empathy for their ethics?
Is this topic about lack of empathy or lack of empathy for ethics? We need to be on the same page here otherwise we're talking about different things.

I'm talking about empathy is general.

What I can say, 1) how can other people's ethical opinion be unimportant if they effect you 2) there's no reason why you should agree with other people's ethical opinions. There is no standard ethical opinion.

It has a huge impact on the world. As in this unimportant, meaningless rock?

Define 'meaningless'

But do our actions affect the entire other side of the universe?

Who cares if our actions don't have an effect on the universe?

I haven't. But please explain to me the proof for that.

On the most basic and obvious level, it's because empathy is a natural part of human psychological development and serves an important social function.
Empathy is something that has developed through evolution. It's part of human nature and functions as a way of relating to others and understanding emotion.

As the brain develops, so do its functions. Empathy is one of its functions. If something impairs its development, the person can be said to be immature. Some people develop it faster than others and they can be said to be mature for their age. But there is also a general, normal, timeline for its development which begins in infanthood.

A key concept in the world of psychological maturity is 'awareness'. A person who becomes aware then becomes mature. This is why I mentioned wisdom earlier. Wisdom comes from actual experience, leading to greater awareness and that awareness guides new behaviour. Having empathy is a form of awareness. It is awareness of emotion and then the ability to relate to it.

That's why I said it has no OBJECTIVE good, it isn't good objectively, only relatively, which is only pointless.

We may as well get to the point where we express that there is no such things as 'good' or 'bad'. These words only exist in a subjective sense. But subjective does not mean unreal and therefore subjective is not pointless.

It's not just the word though, it's the entire concept.

If everyone loves everyone, love becomes meaningless. If everyone is super, nobody is. If everyone has gold, gold becomes unimportant.

I don't think that you can compare love with gold.
Gold is just gold. We give something value because maybe its rare or pretty.
Love, empathy etc. are different. Those functions or expressions are still definable whether everyone experiences is or not. An arm is still an important limb even though everyone has arms (almost everyone). And so love doesn't lose its value if everyone experiences love for everyone. In fact, the world would be a much better place if that were the case so who cares if the concept is perceived as a totally normal human function or not?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

And every single person I know does.

But that's not most people on the entire planet, thus irrelevant. Mine is irrelevant as well.

A "friend" is someone you like. Therefore, hating a friend is completely contradictory.

Semantics, because, a lot of people call their peers friends.

Heh. Not what I meant.

We have the ability to speak to each other at all, because we're on the internet, a piece of technology with the first goal of allowing people to interact with each other across large distances, doing so. Look at the number of social network sites, sites that aren't meant as social networks yet have large, thriving communities. Look at the fact that high schoolers form miniature tribes around a specific interest, and in some instances that culture places considerable status on the amount of friends someone has.

The thing we're conversing here, everything every person has done on the internet, is overall pointless, so the internet is pointless, thus is empathy.

You're stereotyping high schoolers... Not all high schoolers do that, in fact there is no groups in existence in my school, some people get along sometimes and sometimes they don't.

We're just as strong a social species as any other great ape, because we empathize with those we associate the most with. Having little empathy for someone halfway across the planet does not mean having no empathy whatsoever.

I'm sure you have little to no empathy for a murderer's morality, and be aware I'm not talking about empathy in general, I'm talking about people caring about whether someone thinks murdering is good or bad.

You would probably not care if someone you knew thought murdering is good, you would probably disagree needless to say and that would be on the other side of not caring. You would tell them your subjective, meaningless opinion just to throw them off of their subjective, meaningless opinion.

Pointless relative to the Andromeda Galaxy does not mean pointless to the person across the street.

As I said, meaning is relative. Objectively, even if I were to kill the entire species of humans, anything we do and consider good and bad doesn't matter.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

This is confusing me. Lack of empathy for their ethics?
Is this topic about lack of empathy or lack of empathy for ethics? We need to be on the same page here otherwise we're talking about different things.

I said careless for their opinion and it was about opinions in ethics that's possibly what threw this off.

I'm talking about empathy is general.

Eh, I still think empathy in general is irrational but I don't really feel like de-railing the thread.

What I can say, 1) how can other people's ethical opinion be unimportant if they effect you

Because whatever happens to me doesn't in any way affect the rest of the universe.

2) there's no reason why you should agree with other people's ethical opinions. There is no standard ethical opinion.

That's what I'm trying to say. Why does another person's ethical opinions matter to us? That was basically what I meant, just one person's ethical opinion doesn't matter. In other words, whatever someone thinks is good or bad doesn't matter to the rest of us.

Define 'meaningless'

We are not a diamond to the universe, this planet has little to do with the thousands of other galaxies, if it has some (but extremely little) affect on just one solar system?

Who cares if our actions don't have an effect on the universe?

In attempt to prove our actions are meaningless, I proved it by concluding our actions don't have an effect on the universe.

On the most basic and obvious level, it's because empathy is a natural part of human psychological development and serves an important social function.
Empathy is something that has developed through evolution. It's part of human nature and functions as a way of relating to others and understanding emotion.

But it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

As the brain develops, so do its functions. Empathy is one of its functions. If something impairs its development, the person can be said to be immature. Some people develop it faster than others and they can be said to be mature for their age. But there is also a general, normal, timeline for its development which begins in infanthood.



A key concept in the world of psychological maturity is 'awareness'. A person who becomes aware then becomes mature. This is why I mentioned wisdom earlier. Wisdom comes from actual experience, leading to greater awareness and that awareness guides new behaviour. Having empathy is a form of awareness. It is awareness of emotion and then the ability to relate to it.

I'm probably going to stop discussing empathy in general to not derail the idea I had in this thread, I'm sure you will understand

We may as well get to the point where we express that there is no such things as 'good' or 'bad'. These words only exist in a subjective sense. But subjective does not mean unreal and therefore subjective is not pointless.

The only form that it's real is in "Jack thinks X is good" but it doesn't quite say "X is good" it is only saying X is good for Jack. Thus it's pointless. Jack is just one person, what if everyone else in the world thinks X is bad? Jack's opinion doesn't matter then, and neither does the rest of the world's opinions do towards Jack.

I don't think that you can compare love with gold.
Gold is just gold. We give something value because maybe its rare or pretty.
Love, empathy etc. are different. Those functions or expressions are still definable whether everyone experiences is or not. An arm is still an important limb even though everyone has arms (almost everyone). And so love doesn't lose its value if everyone experiences love for everyone. In fact, the world would be a much better place if that were the case so who cares if the concept is perceived as a totally normal human function or not?

What does it mean to love someone if we all love our enemies?

 

[Riverwolf]

Semantics, because, a lot of people call their peers friends.

Because they get along and/or trust each other.

The thing we're conversing here, everything every person has done on the internet, is overall pointless, so the internet is pointless, thus is empathy.

You're stereotyping high schoolers... Not all high schoolers do that, in fact there is no groups in existence in my school, some people get along sometimes and sometimes they don't.

...oh, so you're still in high school? Was not aware of that. Are you sure your observation is accurate?

This "stereotype" is what I remember seeing at my school. And for the record, I was one of the ones who didn't do that (until I discovered the otakus. ^_^)

Forming cliques, as they're called, is so common that it was even brought up occasionally in classes. It's been brought up in college on occasion, even.

Birds of a feather flock together.

I'm sure you have little to no empathy for a murderer's morality, and be aware I'm not talking about empathy in general, I'm talking about people caring about whether someone thinks murdering is good or bad.

You would probably not care if someone you knew thought murdering is good, you would probably disagree needless to say and that would be on the other side of not caring. You would tell them your subjective, meaningless opinion just to throw them off of their subjective, meaningless opinion.

Actually, I would have empathy. I'd still disagree, but do so empathically. I'd feel sorry for the person, and depending on the reason, perhaps understand, all the while disagreeing.

That's what empathy is.

As I said, meaning is relative. Objectively, even if I were to kill the entire species of humans, anything we do and consider good and bad doesn't matter.

But since such an act is contradictory to what virtually every human on the planet wants, it does matter in our terms.

There is meaning so long as there is a species that can comprehend the concept.

 

[Madhuri]

Eh, I still think empathy in general is irrational but I don't really feel like de-railing the thread.

Why is it irrational to relate to others or be able to understand their experience? Empathy is an ability. What is irrational about an ability? It's like being able to sense danger or see colour. It is neither rational or irrational.

That's what I'm trying to say. Why does another person's ethical opinions matter to us? That was basically what I meant, just one person's ethical opinion doesn't matter. In other words, whatever someone thinks is good or bad doesn't matter to the rest of us.

Another person's ethical opinion matters to me if it affects me. If I think they are wrong but do not think they influence me then I don't care what they think.

We are not a diamond to the universe, this planet has little to do with the thousands of other galaxies, if it has some (but extremely little) affect on just one solar system?

In attempt to prove our actions are meaningless, I proved it by concluding our actions don't have an effect on the universe.

Why do our actions have to effect the universe in order to have meaning? Actions have meaning to those affected by the action. So the meaning is contained to ourselves.

Even if our actions do affect the rest of the universe, why would that make actions more or less meaningful? What would make life objectively meaningful?

I'm probably going to stop discussing empathy in general to not derail the idea I had in this thread, I'm sure you will understand

Sorry I got carried away with that

The only form that it's real is in "Jack thinks X is good" but it doesn't quite say "X is good" it is only saying X is good for Jack. Thus it's pointless. Jack is just one person, what if everyone else in the world thinks X is bad? Jack's opinion doesn't matter then, and neither does the rest of the world's opinions do towards Jack.

I don't believe in an objective good or bad. But I'd really like for you to tie this back to your OP. I'm confused as to how all this justifies your actions.

What does it mean to love someone if we all love our enemies?

Love means we feel connected and care about each others wellbeing. If we love everyone it just means we feel that way about everyone. If everyone loved everyone the only concept that would disappear is 'enemy'.

 

[Riverwolf]

What does it mean to love someone if we all love our enemies?

I'll tell you what love is not: it's not a commodity upon which measurable value can be placed.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Because they get along and/or trust each other.

Not all people get along with their peers.

...oh, so you're still in high school? Was not aware of that. Are you sure your observation is accurate?

This "stereotype" is what I remember seeing at my school. And for the record, I was one of the ones who didn't do that (until I discovered the otakus. ^_^)

Forming cliques, as they're called, is so common that it was even brought up occasionally in classes. It's been brought up in college on occasion, even.

I'm pretty sure, I have a lot of friends but we aren't a single group or anything, anyone will hang out with whoever they will.

Actually, I would have empathy. I'd still disagree, but do so empathically. I'd feel sorry for the person, and depending on the reason, perhaps understand, all the while disagreeing.

If you understood their ethical opinion, why disagree?

But since such an act is contradictory to what virtually every human on the planet wants, it does matter in our terms.

Our terms are not even 1% of importance on behalf of the universe.

There is meaning so long as there is a species that can comprehend the concept.

It would be relative, if not to depend on an individual member of the species, amongst different species as well. Thus, to ALL of the living and nonliving, the all in all, grand scheme of things, whatever you call it, it would be a meaningless act, it wouldn't matter. In the same way killing a single fly doesn't matter to us.

I'll tell you what love is not: it's not a commodity upon which measurable value can be placed.

Explain a little more into this please

 

[Me Myself]

Back to the point:

I can garantee you that if you do feel empathy (and you`ve said you do I understand) then you are not a socipath. Given that you are not, you will be happier by doing unto others what you think will make them happier, because you will internalize their displeasure. It can happen consciously or unconsciously, but it will happen.

And one always get`s caugth. If you do something wrong over and over, every time you do it you increase the risk of getting caught, and as such the risk of causing problems. to you and others.

You are having an ilegal substance in your mother`s house. That`s just wrong man.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Why is it irrational to relate to others or be able to understand their experience? Empathy is an ability. What is irrational about an ability? It's like being able to sense danger or see colour. It is neither rational or irrational.

It's irrational to have empathy for something you disagree with, is what I meant.

It's not an instinct, it's an ability, we have to will ourselves to have empathy, we don't automatically have it. Why will yourself to? What is the point to empathize with a moral code you disagree with?

Another person's ethical opinion matters to me if it affects me. If I think they are wrong but do not think they influence me then I don't care what they think.

Thus it is a personal moral code of "If it doesn't affect me, it's fine". In which to point if someone were to disagree that harming you is immoral, they aren't going to listen or have interest in your ethical opinion. Criminals don't care about the law.

Why do our actions have to effect the universe in order to have meaning? Actions have meaning to those affected by the action. So the meaning is contained to ourselves.

If it has effect on the universe it is an objective meaning, it objectively has value, and subjective value is not value in objectivity.

Even if our actions do affect the rest of the universe, why would that make actions more or less meaningful? What would make life objectively meaningful?

The only two events that are meaningful to the universe is the creation and the destruction. For someone's life to be meaningful to all things, all things have to be dependent on it (give it value in that way), so they have to do something to appease the entirety of the universe, which is only the creation and destruction.

I don't believe in an objective good or bad. But I'd really like for you to tie this back to your OP. I'm confused as to how all this justifies your actions.

The thing is, it doesn't justify it, you can't justify something never wrong in the first place. Nothing is wrong... at all.

Love means we feel connected and care about each others wellbeing. If we love everyone it just means we feel that way about everyone. If everyone loved everyone the only concept that would disappear is 'enemy'.

But love wouldn't be special. If I loved all people equally which one do I take into relationship? What is the point of a relationship in that case?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Back to the point:

I can garantee you that if you do feel empathy (and you`ve said you do I understand) then you are not a socipath. Given that you are not, you will be happier by doing unto others what you think will make them happier, because you will internalize their displeasure. It can happen consciously or unconsciously, but it will happen.

I'm not happier JUST for doing things to make others happy, does that make me a sociopath? Again, I've asked you to prove that it makes one a sociopath to have lack of empathy.

And one always get`s caugth. If you do something wrong over and over, every time you do it you increase the risk of getting caught, and as such the risk of causing problems. to you and others.

Not really... I've gotten away with many things, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, otherwise I have some kind of divine powers to break the laws of getting caught.

You are having an ilegal substance in your mother`s house. That`s just wrong man.

Only to you, but to me it was enlightening until I got caught, hence the title.

 

[Me Myself]

Yes, I am telling you there is chance you get away with it and changce you get caught, the more you do it, the more you tempt probabilities that eventually you WILL get caught.

 

[jasonwill2]

It is the mantra of today's children, lie and deny at all costs.

My daughter did not break her cellphone, her cellphone got broken.

She did not wreck her car, her tires lost traction.

Maybe someone knocked the phone out of her hand?

Maybe you didn't get new tires when you should of, causing the wheels to lose traction in snowy conditions?

Who is to say that she really wasn't at fault, but you assume this because of your own preconceptions about the youth, as have all parents for all generations since the beginning of time?

I'd echo what 4consideration said. A philosophy of "don't get caught" suggests a complete lack of moral scruples. With an ethical philosophy limited to "don't get caught" there is no reason to not murder people, steal from people, like to people, and be a generally irresponsible and reprehensible $#@%wad.

If you murder, steal, or are a jerk to people you are gonna get caught.

So murder, rape and theft are just fine as long as you get away with it? Maybe you Mom should lock you in your room, feed you only bread and water and violate you daily with a metal bar until you develop some common sense. After all, it'd be OK as long as she didn't get caught wouldn't it?

1. If I could get away with murder, rape and theft I might be inclined to do it if furthered my greater goals, depending heavily upon context and who I was doing it against.

2. But if his mom did that, she would get caught by Sum, meaning that it would violate the rule.

 

[Madhuri]

It's irrational to have empathy for something you disagree with, is what I meant.

It's not an instinct, it's an ability, we have to will ourselves to have empathy, we don't automatically have it. Why will yourself to? What is the point to empathize with a moral code you disagree with?

Trying to understand someone else's perspective isn't empathy. That may be where we are getting confused.

Empathy is more like someone's parents just died and you can relate to how awful that would feel and therefore you feel some hurt on behalf of that person which may will you to lend some support.

This is not empathy: my friend thinks its moral to hunt animals and I try to relate to that belief.

Empathy is not something you have to force. In fact, you can have empathy that leads to sadism rather than compassion.

I don't think any part of your topic actually involves empathy, especially since one does not 'empathise with a moral code'. You can empathise with the feelings a person has that leads to having that moral code but you can't empathise with the moral code itself, which is not an emotional thing.

I hope that makes sense.

Thus it is a personal moral code of "If it doesn't affect me, it's fine". In which to point if someone were to disagree that harming you is immoral, they aren't going to listen or have interest in your ethical opinion. Criminals don't care about the law.

What's your point?

The only two events that are meaningful to the universe is the creation and the destruction. For someone's life to be meaningful to all things, all things have to be dependent on it (give it value in that way), so they have to do something to appease the entirety of the universe, which is only the creation and destruction.

Why is creation and destruction more meaningful than anything else? Maybe the existence of the universe is not at all meaningful. Or maybe every aspect of the universe, including this world, is meaningful. How do you make that judgement?
Why does an action have to be meaningful to all things in order to have meaning?
This is all so relative. Meaning is relative. Even in relation to the universe. My action is meaningful in relation to the things my action affects. Some actions actually do have effect on outer space and are meaningful in relation to the parts of outer space they effect. Some people's actions are more meaningful than others. It's all relative. My action doesn't have to impact on the creation or destruction of the universe in order to have some meaning in the world it actually pertains to.

The thing is, it doesn't justify it, you can't justify something never wrong in the first place. Nothing is wrong... at all.

What isn't wrong? You don't think your actions could have negative consequences? You said your aim is to not get caught. But you did get caught, most people do. And there are inevitable consequences. So your actions are negatively impacting on your own life. That has meaning relative to you and your family. It doesn't matter if you are ethically correct about the physical harm something might do to you. The reality is that there are other factors. And now you've gone and made things very hard on your mother. That is on you. You did that.

But love wouldn't be special. If I loved all people equally which one do I take into relationship? What is the point of a relationship in that case?

Who says love is all the same? Surely you love multiple things and people in your life in different ways? Why would loving everyone equally then eliminate the complex social relations? It would just mean that your parents and your siblings and your partner and your children and your neighbours would all be very important to you. But they would be important in different ways. No reason why that would not be the case.

 

[HonestJoe]

It's ridiculous how moralists attempt to convince someone out of their logic by fear.

It wasn't an attempt at fear (I don't actually expect you Mom to do that). I was taking your theory to an extreme example to express the flaws in it. If the only rule is "Don't get caught", everything becomes fair game. Do you not see the problems with that?

 

[NIX]

This is your only personal rule? I find that very hard to believe.

Maybe look again a little more carefully and I'm sure you'll find more.

 

[Willamena]

An opinion is meaningful regardless of whether anyone agrees or disagrees with it.

Meaning is relative. What I meant by meaningless means its absoluteness drops to 0.

Right--that it's relative is inherent in what I said. Each opinion is what it is regardless of any other. It has relation to every other, but if we're to use it as a basis of comparison, if the thing being compared to everything else changes, that relation also changes. That's what it is to be relative.

Relativity means each opinion is meaningful, and I deliberately stated post #37 as an opinion to demonstrate that. Regardless that you have a different opinion, my opinion is still meaningful.

 

[Willamena]

I'd like to hear more of this "drops to 0" bit, because, as I read it, in my worldview there is nothing that ever "drops to 0" for any reason.