Man, I’ve been rolling this over and over in my head, and I’m really having trouble thinking of something that benefits society, that does not benefit me personally, at least in some way. 

Even if society kills me, because I’m infected with some noxious disease, doing so might save my loved ones, or other people that I care about.

On the other hand, if I didn’t have any loved ones, or people that I cared about.  If I was completely unsocialized and isolated, I don’t think I WOULD care what was good for society.  So I guess, at least for me, I DO only do things that benefit me in some way indirectly.  Everything I do, I guess, can be seen as in some way self-serving.

Holy crap!  I’m not an Atheist, I’m a SATANIST!

(Damn you Hires, look what you have wrought!)

If I was completely unsocialized and isolated, I don’t think I WOULD care what was good for society

You wouldn’t. No one would. It wouldn’t even OCCUR to you to behave unselfishly, I’m betting. Which is what Hires is proposing, I believe, that the notion (and moral superiority) of unselfishness is there innately through a higher power putting it there. And there is far too much evidence that this isn’t the case without even bothering to argue what does or does not benefit us personally.

Brandi, nowiser, Les,

‘What you are saying is this: “Isn’t what you call the Moral Law just a social convention, something that is put into us by education?“ I think there is another misunderstanding here. You may, or may not be, taking it for granted that if we have learned a thing from parents and teachers, then that thing must of course be a human invention. But that is not so.

We all learned the multiplication table at school. A child who grew up on a desert island would not know it. But surely it does not follow that the multiplication table is simply a human convention, something human beings have made up for themselves and might have made different if they had liked?

I fully agree that we learn the Rule of Decent Behavior from parents and teachers, and friends and books, as we learn everything else. But some of the things we learn are mere conventions which might have been different - we learn to keep to the right of the road, but it might as well have been the rule to keep to the left - and others of them, like mathematics, are real truths. The question is to which class the Law of Human Nature belongs.’

Perhaps the second time around this post has more meaning. This was already posted on October 18 at 12:52 pm to try to explain this argument already.  Does this not make sense?

Hires,

The multiplication table IS a human invention. The whole concept of numbers is a human invention, and the multiplication table is based on those numbers.

we learn to keep to the right of the road, but it might as well have been the rule to keep to the left

Ever been to England or Australia? There it is very wise to keep to the left.

and others of them, like mathematics, are real truths

I missed this on the first reading. You have to be fucking kidding. As I said above, the whole concept of numbers is a human invention.

Well I must say that the idiocy of that answer should be punching YOU in the NUTS.

Ooo! Touch a nerve did I?

I believe the question was stated in such a way that you needed to come up with an answer other than, ‘it happens to pay me personally’. But that’s exactly what you said (it happens to pay me personally). Thus, you are not understanding the question correctly. Maybe you need to read the question again.

I understood the question the first time, no need to read it again. Perhaps you should try telling me of a

single example

in which acting unselfishly wouldn’t benefit me in some way.

Perhaps I should now reverse the ‘medications’ question that was asked of me earlier. And as I understand it, you are the one with adult ADD, not I.

Indeed, I am the one with Adult ADD and I did remember to take my medication this morning. So what’s your excuse then?

‘What you are saying is this: “Isn’t what you call the Moral Law just a social convention, something that is put into us by education?” I think there is another misunderstanding here. You may, or may not be, taking it for granted that if we have learned a thing from parents and teachers, then that thing must of course be a human invention. But that is not so.

Of course it doesn’t have to be a human invention. For example, humans didn’t “invent” trees. So what of it? This line of argument doesn’t support your proposition in any way.

We all learned the multiplication table at school. A child who grew up on a desert island would not know it. But surely it does not follow that the multiplication table is simply a human convention, something human beings have made up for themselves and might have made different if they had liked?

Actually it means EXACTLY that.

I fully agree that we learn the Rule of Decent Behavior from parents and teachers, and friends and books, as we learn everything else. But some of the things we learn are mere conventions which might have been different - we learn to keep to the right of the road, but it might as well have been the rule to keep to the left - and others of them, like mathematics, are real truths. The question is to which class the Law of Human Nature belongs.’

Keeping to the right of the road is a “real” truth? Like Valhalla said, ever been to England? If you go there anytime soon and continue to insist that driving on the right hand side of the road is the “real” truth then you’ll have your visit cut short by oncoming traffic.

Let’s take a different approach to this: Give me an example of one of your “real Truths” as established by this magical external force that applies its influence to our “herd instincts.“ Something that NO one will disagree with being the absolute only right answer.

Perhaps the second time around this post has more meaning. This was already posted on October 18 at 12:52 pm to try to explain this argument already. Does this not make sense?

Does it make sense? As in: Do I understand what you’re trying to propose? Yes! As in, is it how reality seems to operate? Absolutely not.

Valhalla,

Two and two equals four (2 + 2 =  4). Absolutely, no doubt.  The fact that we chose certain symbols or words to represent this, does not change the fact that it is true.  Your are right when you say that numbers is a human invention: you are describing mere conventions as I was trying to explain before (the idea of driving on the right or left side of the road).  Mathematics is simply the study of quantity, form, arrangement, and magnitude (i.e. the methods and processes for disclosing the properties and relations of quantities and magnitudes) The idea that the symbol ‘3’ really represents that there are two cans, does not change the fact that there are indeed two cans. 

Your argument that mathematics is relative is absolutely absurd.

(note the extreme relevance of this last sentence)

I don’t think anyone is arguing that physical reality is relative.  Yes there is a “gap” between what IS, and how humans represent it.  I think this probably falls in the “duh” category.  So let’s not waste TOO much time going around and around on it.

I’ve been looking at your posts, Hires, trying to discern what your point is.  I’m afraid you’re being a little too Socratic in your approach, because much of what you’re saying seems to be very broad generalities, or unsupported assertions about the “nature” of humanity.  The beautiful thing about Socrates, though, was that he always got around to a concrete example at some point, in order to prove/demonstrate the validity of his general assertions.

Can we have the example now? 

If I understand correctly, you are asserting that there is a Natural Law that causes humans to
a) behave a certain way, against what their instincts would lead them to do, and aside from what socialization might lead them to do.

The fact that you choose the Math example is also interesting, as it points toward Platonic conceptions of the “ideal” the corrupt materiality of this world, the limitations of human perception vis a vis the shadow on the cave wall, etc. etc.  That’s fine, if that’s where you’re heading, but lets get there already, so we can move on to the discussion of the validity of Platonic ideals, their influence on the Bible, their appearance in the Corpus Hermeticum, or whatever ELSE it is that you want to discuss. 

If you wanted to approach it in Platonic terms, the fact that all known societies at least have a concept of good and evil would indicate that despite cultural differences of opinion on what exact behaviors might constitute “good” or “evil” behaviors, the mere existence of the concept “proves” that they exist in the ideal realm—that there is an ideal “good” and an ideal “evil” and that human conceptions of the same are merely corrupt variations.

The problem, of course, is that the idea of an ideal of which all material is merely a corrupt reflection is, after all, an idea

just an idea

not two cans, nor three, nor the asphalt from which we bounce upon hurling ourselves from the fifteenth story window,

just an idea.

(I figure if you can rant on and on without getting anywhere, why can’t I?)

Now I’m off to watch the “In Laws” so if I don’t respond to any responses anytime soon, don’t assume I’ve withdrawn from the field of discourse

I’m just having my lance polished.

Cheers.

My testicles are my only personal gate to immortality.  By spreading my DNA around as much as possible, I improve my chances of drinking from the cold, crisp waters of the Fountain of Youth.  In order to ejaculate into healthy females, I need to act as if I am the alpha male.  Therefore, I proclaim that I own this room and I am ruler here.  My word is indisputable.  What is printed in this room under my monicker shall be taken as fact and truth.
With the above disclaimer, I can now say this-I hate Kent Hovind and I will remove and eat his gonads so that his spawn can no longer infect this earth.  I have now declared him my Mortal Enemy.  Bring it, Hovind bitch.  Let’s hear from the twiggy little bastard—-i know he reads these posts.  In fact, I think DB is Hovind in disguise.  Bring it bitch.  I’ll cut you.

Two and two equals four (2 + 2 = 4). Absolutely, no doubt.

Not necessarily. It all depends on what rules of Mathematics you’re using at the time. Issues such as scale come into play as there are four types of measurement scales—nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio. Of those, in only the last two scales does 2+2=4. There’s also an issue of context. Depending on WHAT two things you’re adding together the answer may not be “four” at all. Consider, for example, water droplets. If you take two water droplets and add two more water droplets to them you’ll end up with one puddle of water. In that case, 2+2=1 and that’s an absolute truth. Then there’s consideration of the base numbering system in use. While it is true that in most systems 2+2=4, that’s not true in the Base 3 and Base 4 counting systems. Then we can always move into some of the more esoteric stuff like Modulo Arithmetic where 2+2=3 or 7 or 82 or whatever number you like.

In short, trying to lay claim to the idea that 2+2=4 is an “absolute” truth is entirely relative to what scale, context, base system and method of arithmetic you’re using at the time. In some situations that statement is correct and in others it is incorrect. Regardless, all of mathematics are a human construct and any absolute truths it holds are dependent upon the rules used to establish the system of math in use and said truths are only true in as far as the system in use is concerned. Change the system and the absolute truths change with it.

The fact that we chose certain symbols or words to represent this, does not change the fact that it is true. Your are right when you say that numbers is a human invention: you are describing mere conventions as I was trying to explain before (the idea of driving on the right or left side of the road). Mathematics is simply the study of quantity, form, arrangement, and magnitude (i.e. the methods and processes for disclosing the properties and relations of quantities and magnitudes) The idea that the symbol ‘3’ really represents that there are two cans, does not change the fact that there are indeed two cans.

We could get into a whole discussion on Philosophies of Math and how much bearing they have on reality, but I’d be worried it would give you an aneurysm. What I do find amusing in your statement above is that you’re trying to provide an empirical example of why 2+2=4 is an absolute truth. While that appears reasonable enough on the surface, the validity of mathematical truths has nothing to do with being either empirical or self-evident. The absolute truths of mathematics are such by definition, not because mathematics are some universal constant that exists regardless of whether humans comprehend it or not. Mathematics is a branch of logic and like logic it is a tool for analyzing and deduction, but it’s not a separate “thing” apart from humans that we “discovered” and learned how to apply to reality.

The best paper I’ve ever read on the mathematics and truth is On the Nature of Mathematical Truth written by Carl G. Hempel and originally published in American Mathematical Monthly #52, circa 1945. I’d suggest you try reading it, but I doubt you’d grasp much of it.

Your argument that mathematics is relative is absolutely absurd.

(note the extreme relevance of this last sentence)

It is relevant only within the context of your skewed perceptions on the nature of reality as bolstered by your lack of understanding of some of the things you try to claim as support for your viewpoint.

Fuck it.  I’m just going to hang up the lance and gracefully retire.  I thought going with the Platonic ideal, and then pointing out that mathematics was merely an expression of an idea of the ideal was just

pretty
fucking
clever.

But, ya know, the Hempel thing just totally screwed my pooch. . .

over and out.

Two and two equals four (2 + 2 = 4). Absolutely, no doubt.

Actually Hires 10+10 = 4 in the binary number system, or more correctly 10+10=100, which is decimal 4.  Several posts back, I recommend that you just state your point and not use abstract examples…NOW LOOK AT YOU!!!  You’re getting beat up over whether math is an absolute truth instead of stating your ultimate point!  I get what you’re saying, 2+2 = 4 is always true, it’s just the symbols we use to represent them is different.  Now what does all this have to do with your still undefined Law of Morality?  A law that I believe is NOT definable. Some things do not lend themselves to being defined absolutely…human behavior is definitely one of those things.

The critical flaw in your argument (if you can call it that at this point) is that acceptable moral behavior can not be absolutely defined.  Sure we can establish behavior that we consider to be moral, but that would be a human convention.  Just 140 years ago in the good old USA, blacks were considered property, but that convention has been deemed unacceptable.

Just 60 years ago, it was acceptable for a country to invade and annex another country.  Following WWII, that was deemed to be morally unacceptable and no sovereign nation since the 1940s has been annexed in that way.  Now my boy Saddam tried it with Kuwait and we saw what that got him…unanimous disapproval by the world community and the mother of all ass wuppins!  Waging aggressive wars to gain territory was acceptable in the past and even encouraged.

I recall reading about a certain God, who I shall not name here because it would be indiscreet, who told his “chosen people” to invade neighboring countries, kill the men and the babies, rape the women, and take all their stuff!  Can you explain how such conduct was acceptable in the past and not acceptable today?  The only reasonable explanation is morality is relative; therefore, there is no Law of Morality.  Well I’m glad we straightened that out…next subject

If the Laws of Gravity changed as much as your Law of Morality, they would have a heck of a time trying to play the World Series…

“It’s a fly ball ladies and gentlemen and it’s going, going, going, going, going, going, going……………………………..going… :happy:”

Nice rebuttals Les and nowiser. I presume that we can now consume Hires flavored Jell-o (except for Jesse VB, and he’s volunteered to eat Hovind’s really big balls)
BTW Les, does Hires put you in mind of David at all? I think they might at least attend the same church or the same circle jerk or something.

...and nice one, Mild Bill. Your response was being birthed as I was posting and I’m not allowed in the operating room. Only thing I might critique is your penchant to dance all the time. You’re not gay are you? (Not that you think there’s anything wrong with that)

Hell, I must be gay, what with all the male cheerleading I’m doing. Oh well, thuper work guyth. Keep it UP! I’m so wicked!  I thaid “it up” ~snicker~

Hey jesse vb,
Why do you HATE Hovind so much? He doesn’t hate anyone, or is it just that he shines too much light on the many flaws of evolution?  awwww is that it then? Poor jesse….did Hovind make you angry? there there…
Too bad I wasn’t Hovind in disguise, then I round you all up and debate the hell out of you. (literally)

Les,

Allow me to explain this question yet again, because you still seem to not understand. Here is the question in a different format:

‘What reason, other than selfishness, should you care about what is good for society?’

Your right when you say that the crux of the problem is with this question.  But what you seem to be doing, is misunderstanding the question.  And because of that, you still have an argument.  Whether you understand the question and aren’t admitting it, or you truly don’t understand the question, I don’t know. Non the less, understanding it is crucial to what I am trying to say. 

When I asked the question: ‘Why should I care what is good for society EXCEPT when it happens to pay me personally?’, you replied by saying, ‘ because it does pay me personally’.  Do you not see how ridiculous it was of you to say that? 

It was like being asked: ‘Why should you care about your wife being killed, except for that she is your wife?’  And you would have answered: ‘Because she is my wife.’  Which is not getting you anywhere.  Of course she is your wife, but that is not what you mean.  Obviously the answer should be something along the lines of: ‘Because I vowed to be committed to her’, or ‘I ought to because I love her’. 

So the only answer that one can come up with when asked the original question is simply, ‘Because men ought to be unselfish’.  And I think you know that you ought to be unselfish, but not because we learned to benefit society.  I will now go back to the analogy of the man taking my seat.  A man occupying the corner seat in the subway because he got there first, and a man who slipped into it while my back was turned are both equally inconvenient.  But I blame the second man and do not blame the first.  I am angry with the second man for trying to trip me up, even if he has not succeeded. Why?  Obviously because I am measuring the behavior to a standard of Right and Wrong.  And the man that was in the seat first was closer to that standard of being Right than the man that stole the seat from me. 

And now, I will point out why your answers do not make sense.  When asked, ‘What is the point in behaving decently’, it is no good replying, ‘in order to benefit society’ (which, in essence, is what you are all saying), for trying to benefit society (being unselfish) is one of the things decent behavior consists in.  All you are saying is that decent behavior is decent behavior!  And there’s no point in saying that, yet you continue to.

Let us sum up what we have reached so far.  In the case of stones and trees, and things like that, what we call the Laws of Nature may not be anything except a way of speaking.  When you say that nature is governed by certain laws, this may only mean that nature does, in fact, behave in a certain way.  The so-called laws may not be anything real - anything above and beyond the actual facts whish we observe.  But in the case of Man, we saw that this will not do.  The Law of Human Nature, or of Right and Wrong, must be something above and beyond the actual facts of human behavior.  In this case, besides the actual facts, you have something else - a real law which we did not invent and which we know we ought to obey. 

I now want to consider what this tells us about the universe we live in.  Ever since men were able to think they have been wondering what this universe really is and how it came to be there.  And, very roughly, two views have been held.  First, there is the ‘materialistic’ view.  People who take that view think that matter and space just happen to exist, and always have existed, nobody knows why; and that the matter, behaving in certain fixed ways, has just happened, by a sort of fluke, to produce creatures like ourselves who are able to think.  By one chance in a thousand something hit our sun and made it produce the planets; and by another thousandth chance the chemicals necessary for life, and the right temperature, occurred on one of these planets, and so some of the matter on this earth came alive; and then, by a very long series of chances, the living creatures developed into things like us. 

The other view is the ‘religious’ view.  According to it, what is behind the universe is more like a mind that it is anything else we know.  That is to say, it is conscious, and has purposes, and prefers one thing to another.  And on this view it made the universe, partly for purposes we do not know, but partly, at any rate, to produce creatures like itself - I mean, like itself in the extent of having minds. 

You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense.  Science works by experiments.  It watches how things behave.  Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, ‘I pointed the telescope to such-and-such a part of the sky at 2:20am on January 15th and saw so-and-so,’ or, ‘I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so.’  Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is.  And the more scientific the man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science - and a very useful and necessary job it is too. 

But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes - something of a different kind - this is not a scientific question.  If there is ‘Something Behind’, then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way.  The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make.  And real scientists do not usually make them. 

After all, it is really a matter of common sense.  Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe.  Is it not plain that questions, ‘Why is there a universe?’ ‘Why does it go on as it does?’ ‘Has it any meaning?’ would remain just as they were?

Wow, I don’t know about anyone else, but you’ve totally misrepresented what I said at least. 

I never said I should be decent in order to benefit society.  I said I should be decent in order to benefit society, because to do so benefits me.  You’ve basically removed the last half of my assertion in order to render my statement a tautology.  Nice trick.  I wonder how you would feel if I returned the favor.

I also asserted that if there was no perceivable benefit to me, that I would probably NOT act in that fashion.  There’s the answer to your question “What reason, other than selfishness, should you care about the good of society?“ The answer is NONE.  Fortunately for the world, I see a great deal of what I do for society coming back to me.  Which is why I am not an axe-murdering rapist.  If, however, my entire family were to be slaughtered, and my dog got run over, and the government seized all my bank accounts, do not for a moment delude yourself that I would not become, quite quickly, a very dangerous man.  Dangerous even to “good” people like the ones who populate this board. 

I believe what Brandi and Les have said basically amounts to the same thing, but if I misrepresent them, my apologies.  I’m sorry if my response doesn’t make you feel warm and cozy, but sometimes cold and true is preferable to happy and false. 
 
Brandi made an interesting point by indicating that children who have not been socialized to show care and empathy for others don’t show care and empathy for others.  They don’t have any reason to do so.  It’s not “natural” for them to do so.  It’s only “natural” for people to do this in a social environment, where there is a direct benefit to them in adopting these behaviors.  You posit that the behavior comes from somewhere “above,“ outside of society.  The visible results of a lack of socialization, however, in people (as well as in dogs) demonstrates a much more feasable explanation: animals and people act “correctly” because they are socialized to do so.  “Right” does not come from “above,“ it is socially determined. 

I could for example apply electricity to the legs of a frog, watch them twitch, then remove the electrical stimuli, watch them grow still, and say “see—the electricity makes the legs twitch.“

“Ah,“ you respond, “the Law of Nature makes the legs twitch.  The fact that it only does so when you’re holding an electrode to the frogleg is, well,  coincidence.“

Hmmm.  Right.  I’ll have to mull that one over for a while. 

On another note, people aren’t the only animals that engage in what we would consider “good” or “noble” behavior.  There are plenty of animals that do things that will kill them, in order to perpetuate their species or protect their flock, herd, or pack.  Other animals don’t give a damn what happens to the rest of their kind, as long as they can keep eating.  You could point to the “Law of Nature” and say “see, Wolves are noble, good animals. . . but sharks kind’a suck.“  Or you could look at the the biological and chemical reasons why these animals act the way they do.  It is not a matter of “good” or “evil.“  Why is it so hard to accept that human acts of “goodness” might be rooted in similar reasons?

I think you assume an intangible cause for an observable phenomena, despite tangible explanations that could serve quite as well.  That, of course is your choice.  But it is, ultimately a matter of faith.  You can’t prove it, or show it to anyone, or even demonstrate it convincingly while more palpable and demonstrable causes for the same phenomena are available.  You point to the “something behind,“ and I say to you, “show me how it bends light, or affects the gravitational field of the planet.  Show me how it affects anything.  Show me how it makes us “good.“ Once again, I have a choice—God

or biology.

What do you think I’m going with?

I once saw an empty pop fall off my kitchen counter. I can percieve at least two explanations for this occuring. It is possible that a leprechaun had entered my kitchen and was being mischievous, and it could also have been the “wind” blowing through the open window. Since everyone knows that leprechauns are real, we have to admit that the leprechaun did it, pop cans don’t just fall over because of the “wind”.

Now for the question boys and girls. Is that statement an example of logic? (or maybe the reasoning of a true believer, in this case in leprechauns, trying to see evidence for their belief?)

Crank the wayback machine to the top of the page and you will find that this post was about a movie trailer. Reading the rest of it just left me feeling like I wished I could have taken the green pill.

Hires, why don’t you give us an example of an unselfish action that benefits society, but would not benefit the individual.

Do you even realize that your question is moot if said selfish individual is a part of the benefiting society?  Which leaves the unselfish action having to benefit a society that the individual does not belong to.  I fail to see how an unselfish action would not benefit the individual in some form, even if it is only the appreciation of the recipient.

BCS- Starting these threads is like setting the cruise control and climbing in the back seat to argue.   Sometimes Les hits the brakes and kicks everyone out - see “Virgin Mary Fence Post” thread.

Ragman,

I think I could probably come up with an “unselfish” action that would benefit society without benefiting the individual.  I’d have to think about it, but I think I could probably come up with one. 

That doesn’t mean I’d personally commit that action.  And if I did, it wouldn’t necessarily mean that I “chose” to do it.  Biological and chemical forces might “convince” me to act to preserve the species, but the fact that they did so could merely be additional evidence that evolution favors “unselfish” behavior in certain species. 

Or it could be God moving me to “goodness.“  Of course, if we don’t understand exactly how it works, it’s probably God.  Until we figure it out at least.

Leprechaun or wind?  Even if Hires comes up with a completely unselfish act, I don’t see it as “proof” of divine guidance.

OK, I’m bowing out of this discussion now, because I have to get back to my Life.  The faithful have a much higher motivation for engaging in this kind of debate, as far as I’m concerned.  After all, they’re bringing salvation to the unenlightened.

I on the other hand, have no salvation to offer, don’t expect to really change anyone’s mind, and am motivated by a sort of “logical outrage” mental reflex that is more like scratching a particularly annoying itch, rather than anything else.

ie: If you don’t enjoy scratching, don’t roll in the poison ivy.

So I’m out.

Ragman,
I should think that the question should be fairly obvious to you.  Things like being content with ten dollars when you might have gotten one hundred dollars, doing school work honestly when it would be easy to cheat, leaving a girl alone when you would like to make love to her, staying in dangerous places when you would like to go somewhere safer, keeping promises you would rather not keep, and telling the truth even when it makes you look a fool, are all valid answers to your question.

I already said, after all, society only means ‘other people’.  With that in mind, I will restate the original question. 

‘Why should you care what is good for ‘your children’ except when it happens to pay you personally?’  Of course, because you feel that you ought to care for them.  Which is why I originally came up with the answer ‘Because we ought to be unselfish’. 

The ultimate example of this would be dying for your children (in a dangerous type situation where you know that if you intervened, you would die and they would live).  You would gain nothing (in fact, you lose everything), and they would have their lives.  If you have children, or a spouse, or any people in your life that have great meaning to you, then I believe you would feel the urge to help them in some great way if they needed it, even if you lost something of yourself (like your life for example).

And you really can not respond like, ‘The reason why I would die for my ‘wife’ is because it benefits the survival of the rest of people that are still alive.’ Because if you believe that - everything people do, is for themselves in the end (like: I please my wife, because it pleases ME to do so) - then why wouldn’t you trick your wife into giving you as much pleasure as possible before you die?  Obviously because you know you ought to be unselfish.  And this brings us back to where we were. Have I not already mad this point clear?  What will it take to convince you that you abide by this Law I have been talking about every day of your lives? I believe DB may have been right when he said you are wearing some type of ‘blinders’. 

And if your scared to admit to anything I have said, you should be.  Because where I am leading should make you feel just the slightest bit uneasy.  But don’t let that stop you from finding out the truth.  All I am doing is presenting to you a way in which I see the world. But don’t go out of your way to disagree with me, just because you think you know where I am leading.  Like I said before, where not even within a hundred miles of the God of Christian Theology.

I should think that the question should be fairly obvious to you. Things like being content with ten dollars when you might have gotten one hundred dollars

Uh, eating your heart out over the past does not serve your personal best interests.  Being “content” in this situation is the best thing that you can do FOR YOURSELF—it minimizes pain, and maximizes pleasure

doing school work honestly when it would be easy to cheat

If I NEED to cheat, then I am gaining nothing from the school work, and the purpose of the education is subverted, which damages ME.  Ultimately, relying on cheating instead of actually learning damages ME.  Therefore, NOT cheating is in MY best interests.

leaving a girl alone when you would like to make love to her

Does she have a large, heavily armed and jealous
father/Brother/Husband?  Is she drunk, asking me to pay her, or unwilling to sleep with me?  The first subset endangers my physical well being, the second is an assault on my personal sense of my own value—I am “good” enough to get sex without
having to rape or pay for it.  Barring those scenarios, however, we’re gonna get busy.

staying in dangerous places when you would like to go somewhere safer

Why the hell would I do that?  I’m leaving that area as fast as I can, unless of course something that is of value to me can be preserved by my continuing to risk myself.  Of course, that’s not
selfless, that’s selfish.

keeping promises you would rather not keep

I have a personal sense of honor.  I CHOOSE to abide by it because it gives me a sense of self-worth.  Masturbatory, I know, but it makes ME happy and most people are willing to let me to continue in that vein, especially since it also involves protecting the weak, showing mercy to my enemies and all that other “good” stuff.

telling the truth even when it makes you look a fool

I would rather be a fool than a liar.  But this, like keeping promises I would rather not keep, is a matter of my personal preference—I despise people that make the opposite choice, and I do not wish to be like them.  It therefore serves MY EGO to do what you would consider “right.“

are all valid answers to your question

.
And can also clearly be chalked up to factors other than “The Force.“  Psychological drives inculcated through social pressure, or biologically determined behaviors that evolved for the perpetuation of the species. 

My personal sense of “honor” for example, is a figment.  I KNOW it is a product of social pressures, and yet I choose to adhere to it, even when it is personally harmful to me, because it
provides one absolutely excellent benefit—it allows me to love and respect myself.  To live, but lose that sense of self, artificial as it may be, would be worse than dying.  So apparently “good” behavior on my part is ACTUALLY rooted in my love of myself.

And you really can not respond like, ‘The reason why I would die for my ‘wife’ is because it benefits the survival of the rest of people that are still alive.’ Because if you believe that - everything people do, is for themselves in the end

Wow, you understood what I said.  You actually encapsulated my entire argument—Everything people do, is for themselves in the end.  But apparently this violates that rules of our debate
because I “can not respond” in this way.  BUT I DID respond in this way.  And you have failed to point out why my response is invalid.  All your examples can easily be attributed to something other than “The Force.“

why wouldn’t you trick your wife into giving you as much pleasure as possible before you die? Obviously because you know you ought to be unselfish

OR because I want OTHER people to be unselfish, and have figured out that the best way to accomplish this is to act in an unselfish manner myself.  I do not “trick” my wife into anything
because it would violate my sense of honor to do so.  It would also be incredibly damaging to me if she were ever to discover the deception.  And since I value my wife for a great deal more than sex, it would be INCREDIBLY destructive to my self interests to ever do anything to harm her.

And this brings us back to where we were. Have I not already made this point clear?

No, you’ve repeated it ad nauseum.  That’s not the same as establishing its truth value.

What will it take to convince you that you abide by this Law I have been talking about every day of your lives? I believe DB may have been right when he said you are wearing some type of
‘blinders’.

Yeah, I don’t see the leprechaun, I must be wearing blinders.

And if you’re scared to admit to anything I have said, you should be. Because where I am leading should make you feel just the slightest bit uneasy.

I don’t have to “admit” to anything you’ve said.  It has incontrovertibly been said/written.  There’s no need for admissions, it’s freakin’ visibly evident. As for its truth value, I don’t admit to that, because I haven’t seen any evidence
for same.  As for the “uneasiness,“ I think that’s the cheeseburger I had for lunch.

“But don’t let that stop you from finding out the truth. All I am doing is presenting to you a way in which I see the world.“
The search for truth is indeed a noble pursuit.  I just wish you’d be a little more straightforward in your approach to that pursuit.  So far, you’ve misrepresented the arguments that some people have made, and then asserted that they “can’t make those arguments” when clearly they can, and have made those arguments. 

You reject those arguments, not because they are not feasable, but because you don’t LIKE them.  You have yet to demonstrate why those arguments are untrue.

But don’t go out of your way to disagree with me, just because you think you know where I am leading. Like I said before, we’re not even within a hundred miles of the God of Christian Theology.

I don’t care if it’s Krishna.  Or the “Force.“  If you’re going to assert that it is the “prime cause” of human behavior, be prepared to demonstrate the same.  I don’t reject the possibility of some invisible force, I merely choose to believe in the wind,  rather than the leprechaun. Because frequently, in the past, the “leprechaun” has ended up just being the wind.  I’m just playing the odds.

Now, my wife has brought me ice-cream, so I must abandon this discourse at the moment.  I’m quite sure that she brought it for her own selfish reasons, but this does not in any way detract
from my pleasure in the ice cream, because her “selfish” reason is that it gives her warm fuzzies to see my expression when I am confronted with Dreamery Brownies a la Mode.

Cheers

P.s.  Forgive my corrections of teh speling erers int he quotes.  I’m not trying to misrepresent Hires, just trying to make the reading easier.

By the way, if anyone else is reading this, pick up some ginger Altoids when you get a chance.  They’re, shall we say, “stimulating.“  Also, at Cost Plus, you can get these things called Salzig Herringe (I think their from Germany, but I’m not
sure.“  They’re not exactly “good,“ as they are basically some sort of salty licorice—despite the fact they aren’t really that “good,“ however, they are highly addictive.

And if your scared to admit to anything I have said, you should be. Because where I am leading should make you feel just the slightest bit uneasy. All I am doing is presenting to you a way in which I see the world.

I gave an example too, and I gave no evidence either, but I don’t think anyone is afraid.