George – Hey, it’s all good. Survival is the only moral option, because without survival, there’s no morality. Morality is a construction of the human mind, not an objective. Furthermore, if man doesn’t survive, then there is no society, as that, too, is a construct of man. Kingdom of God is irrelevant, and a construction of the mind. If we don’t try to live, then how the hell are we supposed to be moral? I’m sure that your God wouldn’t advocate dying just to get to Heaven, would he?

Nate – To begin, if you aren’t approaching the issue from an inherently religious standpoint, then what defines morally superior or not? That’s a key component that seems to be missing throughout your argument. Sure, it can be perceived as morally superior. However, if we speak in the realm of real implications, we must examine the extent of what this deontological framework justifies. Do what is right though the world should perish? Is that what your ethics want? They certainly justify it. And what end does that serve? You say that fighting against evil is morally preferable to apathy, even if apathy preserves the net number of lives. However, wouldn’t allowing those lives to be sacrificed become the morally evil thing to do, as life holds intrinsic sacredness? Finally, wonder whether life is a means to an end. You contradict the statement “life is simply a means of increasing moral action” by stating that life is only a means to morality. Clarify, please, as those statements appear to confirm each other, not negate. I’d contend that life is a means to an end, from a religious standpoint or not. From a religious standpoint, the end is either to be a morally righteous person or to achieve Heaven. From a non-religious standpoint (assuming a person concerned with morality at all), the end is to be a morally righteous person, despite the lack of universal moral standards.

Antonio – Oh, that was supposed to be funny, wasn’t it? What’s the point of even posting that? Great, you can’t last in an intellectual debate; that means neither that others can’t, nor that they care that you can’t.

1. Okay.

2. I understand where you’re coming from. I simply disagree with it.

3. Protagoras is NOT saying that man measures other man in comparison with himself. Protagoras’ quote is used in the context over a debate of relativity of values. What he’s saying is that there is no universal moral system, and that Man creates his own virtues. In other words, he stands in direct contrast with religion’s view of an objective moral system of right and wrong. It really has nothing to do with the way that man compares himself to other men, or the concept of hierarchies.

4. I don’t really understand why man must exploit himself. You’re saying that we value other traits more highly than others, and that this means that man must exploit his fellow man. You’ve really not proved that classifying others as objectively having less money than you do either a) exploits, or b) dehumanizes them. Nor have you really proven that an objective measure of money relying on an objective amount of money is the “flaw of life.” I really don’t see any reason why saying, “I have $300. You have $200. You have less money than I do,” is a bad thing, or an injustice at all.

5. Stop. Talking. About. Heaven. WHY? You haven’t proved that the egocentric structure of the mind goes away if you go to heaven. You haven’t proved that heaven makes your problems go away. I could launch myself into a tirade against Christianity, but for the sanity of some specific people that I know will read this article, I won’t. That statement in your argument is absolutely irrelevant to any substantial arguments made.

6. Okay, so, you’re basically talking about Capitalism, and that it’s bad because it makes people feel bad because they’re compared to their peers. However, you take an obscenely narrow perspective on life. Are you aware that there are societies in which people live as equals, no matter how poor or wealthy there are? There are people who live apart from society, not comparing themselves to anyone. They don’t need to compare. This alone disproves your argument.

7. You throw random words like “degeneracy” in your explanation. You still haven’t proven that comparisons inherently cause this “degeneracy.” There’s no reason that calling people poor, or noting that one has more money than another, or that one has more qualifications than another degenerates the person on the other end. Just because we compare ourselves to each other does not mean that we value one person less than the other. In fact, the very act of comparing one to the other is a sure sign that we value each other equally, worthy of being compared to each other, to discern small differences, like technical skill, so that the person hired for the metaphorical job can do the best work.

8. I literally used 65 out of my 456 word response to point out a historical inaccuracy. Hardly the majority of my answer, and it really doesn’t detract from the quality of the rest of the response.

9. I’m not sure what I’m misunderstanding here. I’m pretty sure I answered your thesis, that man exploits himself through hierarchies. Is that wrong?

10. You know, I’m still not sure why people have an issue with me arguing with the articles that they post. After all, along with Nate and Dan, I did create this website to open a public forum in which we could debate peoples’ opinions. I enjoy you challenging my opinion, I don’t resent it. I’m not trying to attack you personally, but I have fun questioning peoples’ beliefs and assumptions. So no, I’m not saying that I’m right, though I will contend that I am.

first off, i didn’t state the claim about platos praise of protagoras, nate tossed that one in, so ill disregard that. and i also want do recommend that you take some time to understand an article before you so hastily insult its very meaning. that aside, protagoras’ quote is the one used in my unedited article. you have stated its meaning correctly and i believe it does relate to the article. it does mean that man has created his own objective truths, namely rich > poor strong > weak or tall > short. man must exploit itself in that it must classify others as, for example, poor to feel the empowerments of being rich, thus exploiting his fellow man. wealth depends on objective things such as money or possessions, but therein lies the flaw of life. the question was if i could eliminate any injustice would it be, but i reality, there is only one “place” where this great injustice can be eliminated, and that is heaven. your misunderstanding of this concept may be some of the reason for your disagreement. relative comparisons make humans egocentric because of reasons explained in the paragraph; you obviously didnt grasp the meaning of the entire thing. one must be related to another in order to achieve anything in this world. for example, if you are trying to get a job, you must be related by your interviewer in comparison to other competitors for the position. subject A is not intelligent in comparison to subject B, we hire subject B. this doesnt suggest that comparison encourages dehumanization, just that it promotes the desires of one in exchange for the degeneracy, or recognition of degeneracy, of another. i also dont know where you derive “getting over your trivial disadvantages to better your fellow man”. you get over your disadvantage by exploiting him and in order to further do so. this subject is at the very heart of the point of this article, a point which you haven’t had the ability to understand because you’ve been to busy looking for petty historical faults. dont you ever agree with anything people write? or do u consider yourself too shrewd and astute to agree with anything but your own opinion?

First off, your statement about Plato praising Protagoras is blatantly false. Protagoras was a sophist; Plato was not. This is an important distinction to make, as many assume that Plato, as a Greek philosopher at the time of the Sophists, was a Sophist. In reality, he absolutely abhorred the Sophists, and denounced them as “one of the primary enemies of virtue,” not “teachers” of virtue. Second, you sadly twist Protagoras’ words, and he is currently turning in his grave. Protagoras spoke those words in the context of a debate about relativity. What that quote meant was that Man creates his own truth, and that there is no Objective truth, but how we create the illusion of truth defines it. Protagoras would absolutely not advocate the view that Man must compare himself to his fellow man to evaluate themselves. Third, I don’t understand how your statement that “One measures man in relation to another,” means that humans must exploit themselves. It seems that there is no correlation between the two, aside from the fact that you put them next to each other in the same paragraph. Fourth, you make the claim that we must exploit ourselves because a “tall man is so in relation to a short man,” and “a rich man is so in relation to a poor man.” Again, I see no correlation, as “tall” and “short,” along with “rich” and “poor” are relative terms. I’m pretty sure that you’re not arguing that we do away with relative terms altogether, so could you please explain the connection between egocentric humans and relative comparisons. Fifth, I’m pretty sure that nobody has ever said “Oh, you don’t have X? Well, at least you aren’t a starving African living in the Republic of Liberia.” Sure, people compare themselves to other people. Sure, people are always worse off than you are. But this in itself isn’t dehumanizing to starving Africans (or others in poverty). There’s really no connection here. Honestly, recognizing the plight of others and getting over your own trivial disadvantages so that you can better your fellow man doesn’t seem so evil to me.

Next, you talk about how a panther must kill as a man must exploit his own kind. I’m not sure that this is true. Man may exploit himself, but that doesn’t mean that he has to. Saying that he has to would imply that man is wholly and predominantly evil. Surely, that is not the case (despite my own convictions). And who is to say that your analogy is flawed, and that man, too, must exploit his brother to survive? We’ve all seen the examples of Communism fall. Let’s face it, Capitalism is inevitable. Hierarchies are the reality. Humanity doesn’t work without structure.

Nate –

First, I think your categorization of the “ego-centric structure of the mind” as a necessary evil is flawed. While it may be necessary (note, though, that I will not advocate that it is necessary), it is not evil. Caring about yourself is surely not evil. It’s survival. Man is but an animal. We are no different than the panther in the jungle, we kill to survive, as you later point out. You even say that it is a force of good. So I guess I don’t really disagree with your idea, just your rhetoric. Next, you say that without self-interest, we would have no drive to exceed the status quo because we would be satisfied with our weakness. But, did you ever think that maybe we should be satisfied with our weaknesses? I’m sure that you would not contend that one can be wholly perfect. To use Nietzsche’s example of a daemon coming into your room, dooming you to live your life, the suffering and the joy together, for all of eternity, I think that we must be satisfied with our weaknesses. Yeah, sure, Nietzschean philosophy was quoted by Hitler, whatever. But seriously, think about it. Why do we need to “exceed the status quo?” Why is the status quo the status quo? I’m not saying that we should not try to prevent our suffering, but shouldn’t we do it because it is the good thing to do, not to end suffering? Let’s face it, suffering is inevitable, and we waste our existence by attempting to stop it. Actually stop for a second. Think about this. Embrace the suffering. Live your life, be you, and love it! Don’t you just love conditional advocacies? (For the rest of you, that last sentence was a debate joke, disregard it)

Good. Don’t be a fan of Ayn Rand. But don’t disregard her ideas, either. Is Man truly the only creature that will willingly sacrifice life for others? Sure, we may not see animals as benevolent, ethical creatures, but we’ve heard the stories of animals saving their family members with their lives. Is it truly coincidence that these animals have the conviction to suffer for what they value? Just because they don’t hold an esoteric set of ideals doesn’t mean that they “subordinate our moral agency,” as you so portray animal nature. Give up your traditional beliefs, and venture into the unknown. Open up your eyes. If you see something different than I do, then I have no issue with that. But just try, break the cycle, even if for just a day.

Not really sure where these quotes factor in. I would think that the affect of the ego-centricity that we are talking about indicates that thoughts have the power to reign over material governances. Beliefs and convictions, as well as thought, remain prevalent, and are a prerequisite to change (see Johnston, “The Cynic’s Fetish: Slavoj Zizek and the Dynamics of Belief”). However, we cannot rely alone on our ideas to hold power over the system; we must place an actualizable demand on the hierarchical structure of the State that the State never expects will be made (see Zizek, “Violence”).

False. Survival is morality. Survival is the moral option (see Nye, “Nuclear Ethics”).

First, the “egocentric structure of the mind” is a necessary evil. By this, I mean that although one can say that ambition leads to relative weakness and destructive hierarchy, we must recognize that this is the natural order of the animal kingdom that enables every species to continue. If we were not concerned about our own welfare, would we not have submitted to disaster or become stagnant at the beginning of our existence? While self-interest has many unjust effects on society, it is also a force of good in that it enables us to progress as a civilization through the endless pursuit of strength. Without self-interest we would have no drive to exceed the status quo because we would be satisfied with our weaknesses.

Second, don’t worry; Nate Peereboom is not a fan of Ayn Rand! Rather, I believe that the very triumph of humanity is the fact that we have clung to ideals that have, at times, trumped our basic physical (i.e. animal) needs. Man is the only creature that has the capacity to willing sacrifice life, or quality of life, in the pursuit of principles or ethics. One might even venture to say that human nature is not the injustice, but rather it is the remnants of our animal instincts that compel us to subordinate our moral agency.

In the human world, ideas ought to have power within themselves (see Foucault, Discipline and Punishment) that can reign over the material governances that some have tried to insist are the only informants of action (see Marx, historical materialism).

If material needs are the only things we act upon than we have already rendered any notion of justice or injustice nonsensical.

Thanks.
Peace

–Nate Peereboom