[inquest]

So, the problem you have is that, given the first choice, it ain't a universal moral imperative any more - it's just one of many preferences you have, for which you can articulate some sort of reason with varying degrees of success. I prefer chocolate, you prefer strawberry. I like wine, you prefer beer. I like painlessness, you like pain. And we don't call the first two sets of choices "moral imperatives", but we want to pretend that the last preference is.

I also despise tomatoes, to the point where it's caused me to wretch if I find that those things are in my mouth. And so I can say with certainty that if the vast majority (or really, any number) of people react to tomatoes the same way I do, then it would be wrong to make them eat them (parental prerogative perhaps excepted, up to a point). Not as wrong as it would be to inflict pain on them (provided they feel pain the same way I do), but a certain wrong nonetheless.

So you see the point I'm making. I evaluate an experience (by which I mean, the end subjective result of the experience, as distinct from the stimuli which cause it, as the same stimuli might cause different experiences for different people) as being awful, and then say it would be wrong to subject others to that same experience (regardless of whatever stimuli are used to elicit it). Logic then tells me that in at least one case (pain), the vast majority of those around me are also capable of being subjected to that same experience, using much the same stimuli, and therefore it's wrong to inflict it on them. So I say, don't do it.

It must have come from someone not like us, who can see and know universal truth in a way that we cannot.

And I'll give you about twenty seconds to think of who all that person is usually thought to be :^)

Uhhh... Santa Claus? (I can see the cult forming already)

And maybe that's why we cast self-sacrifice as "noble" and "good" and "worthy" and sing its praises and tout its virtues - because, in our heart of hearts, we know just how rare it really is, and that maybe it's not really the norm after all. After all, why cast it as noble and good if that's how everyone does it anyway? It's just the normal state of affairs.

I never suggested it was commonplace. But it is a conscious decision people make. In many cases, it's a result of the right upbringing. People have to be brought up to know that there are others in this world who have needs and desires and dreams like they do. I know that for me (if I should ever have the cojones to sacrifice myself in such a way), my conscious motivation would be that I'm making a difference for someone else. You can try to tell me that that's just an illusion that evolution places on me, but I know that it's not. It's real, as real as anything could be.

[general_re]

So you see the point I'm making. I evaluate an experience (by which I mean, the end subjective result of the experience, as distinct from the stimuli which cause it, as the same stimuli might cause different experiences for different people) as being awful, and then say it would be wrong to subject others to that same experience (regardless of whatever stimuli are used to elicit it). Logic then tells me that in at least one case (pain), the vast majority of those around me are also capable of being subjected to that same experience, using much the same stimuli, and therefore it's wrong to inflict it on them. So I say, don't do it.

Ah, see, I thought we'd find something like common ground sooner or later. I cannot argue with this case you have laid out here. I can only add that, although it may be a personal preference of yours not to like experiencing pain, one of my starting precepts all along has been to accept such preferences as a priori valid. You say you don't like pain? Fine by me - who am I to countermand your own personal preferences in such things?

So, it may be the case that this is purely an arbitrary personal preference of yours not to eat tomatoes (and I'm with you all the way on that one), but we accept that preference of yours, and we take it as given. And we can build a system of "morality" upon that, in addition to some other basic precepts.

The end result is much like what I said to Betty - I can't prove or disprove the existence of universal morality, any more than I can prove or disprove the existence of God. I can only try to show that universal morality isn't necessary. This is nice to know in and of itself, because it renders morality as totally self-sustaining and self-contained - it's no longer contingent upon anything at all, and even if someone were to completely disprove God and universal morality tomorrow (good luck), we would still have something resembling a framework for civilized society.

Uhhh... Santa Claus? (I can see the cult forming already)

He's making a list, you know. And double-checking it. Santa punishes the immoral and rewards the moral. Let us pray to the great and powerful Claus.

:^)

I know that for me (if I should ever have the cojones to sacrifice myself in such a way), my conscious motivation would be that I'm making a difference for someone else. You can try to tell me that that's just an illusion that evolution places on me, but I know that it's not. It's real, as real as anything could be.

But it is real, very real - the impulse really exists. I don't want to tell you that this feeling is an illusion, because I don't think it is. So, I would agree that this pull from within is real, but the question is, who's doing the pulling? Does it come entirely from the inside, or does it come from the outside?