Prudence, one of the four virtues. (1. Prudence. 2. Justice. 3. Fortitude. 4. Temperance)

That is really depressing. I did look some stuff up and there are some philiosphers that do define ethics in terms of self interest, but I find that to be crappy. The Golden Rule is one of them-while it might result in ethical behavior, I think the motive behind that behavior stinks. I prefer Kant's view of duty:


Kant: which emphasizes a single principle of duty. Influenced by Pufendorf, Kant agreed that we have moral duties to oneself and others, such as developing one's talents, and keeping our promises to others. However, Kant argued that there is a more foundational principle of duty that encompasses our particular duties. It is a single, self-evident principle of reason that he calls the "categorical imperative." A categorical imperative, he argued, is fundamentally different from hypothetical imperatives that hinge on some personal desire that we have, for example, "If you want to get a good job, then you ought to go to college." By contrast, a categorical imperative simply mandates an action, irrespective of one's personal desires, such as "You ought to do X." Kant gives at least four versions of the categorical imperative, but one is especially direct: Treat people as an end, and never as a means to an end. That is, we should always treat people with dignity, and never use them as mere instruments. For Kant, we treat people as an end whenever our actions toward someone reflect the inherent value of that person. Donating to charity, for example, is morally correct since this acknowledges the inherent value of the recipient. By contrast, we treat someone as a means to an end whenever we treat that person as a tool to achieve something else. It is wrong, for example, to steal my neighbor's car since I would be treating her as a means to my own happiness. The categorical imperative also regulates the morality of actions that affect us individually. Suicide, for example, would be wrong since I would be treating my life as a means to the alleviation of my misery. Kant believes that the morality of all actions can be determined by appealing to this single principle of duty.

I don't think people or other being should be just treated as means, but as ends in and of themselves. I am not going to be nice to a person as a means to get something or prevent them from doing something-but because it is the right thing to do.

"we treat someone as a means to an end whenever we treat that person as a tool to achieve something else"
--------------------------
so basically if i hire someone to work for me, so i can make a lot of money, i am immoral???? whether or not i pay them good money and they are happy with their job, i still am, in fact, using them to further myself. i hired them bc they had something i needed to succeed, not bc i really wanted to help them make money!!
so if i then decided i wanted to be a "moral" person, i must fire them. that would be "moral" hmmm???? do i really have to ask my employees how they feel about that???

IMHO - Capitalism and Calvinism are so tightly intertwined that neither one makes a decent moral code.

Cheers,

Friday

I read through the entire six pages of this thread and it seems to me that everyone is overlooking the most important point. Where is that cat stew recipe? The neighbors cat is nice and plump and it has crapped in my lawn for the last time. Slurrrp!

I am sure you can probably adapt one of the recipes posted. Just make sure you get rid of all the fur first. That ruins the broth.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the Golden rule as based in self-interest at all, but more an ethic of reciprocity. In more modern terms, "What goes around, comes around."
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Does not imply to me to be kind to others so that they will be kind to you, but rather (assuming that you are not a masochistic psychopath) that you should use yourself as a reference when determining how best to treat others and treat them in a way that you yourself would wish to be treated. No, it's certainly not a guarantee that the action will be reciprocated, but that really is the whole point...treat others as you yourself would wish to be treated whether they do the same or not. IMO, if more people put themselves in the others' place and thought about whether or not they would appreciate being treated that way before acting, the world would be a very different place.
Implied in that is the idea that all people are deserving of the same courtesy, respect and dignity that you yourself believe you are due.
It's also interesting to note that the Golden rule focuses on an action, "DO" not a refraining from action "DO NOT" as in what is often referred to as the 'Silver Rule': " Do not do unto others what you would not want them to do to you." It's a subtle difference but the former encourages you to act in kindness towards others because it is the moral thing to do and because all human beings are deserving of being treated decently (not because you expect it in return) as opposed to the second that simply states that we should refrain from doing unkind things to others. The latter allows for apathy towards your fellow human beings as long as you are not actively being unkind, while the former does not.

I'd just like point out that if you stew that cat, the rats and mice move in.

In Europe's Middle Ages, when a silly church taught that cats were evil and should be killed, the rats and mice took over...carrying fleas...carrying the black plague...that slaughtered 2/3 (or more) of the humans in Europe.

Yes, the housecats need us, but we need them, too.

Lisa, without a minimal level of self-interest, the Golden Rule (and even the Silver Rule) become meaningless, because if I'm that masochist you dismiss so easily, those rules would tell me to hurt others as well (under the guise of Masochism).

Where in your pantheon is self-sacrifice? You know, like that Jesus character is so often credited with? Was he a "masochistic psychopath" for avoiding his self-interest to supposedly redeem believers?

I propose the Platinum Rule: do good unto others even if that good would not be good to you, or causes you harm.

I haven't heard of the Silver Rule before, but it seems pretty close to the general interpretation of Kant's Categorical Imperative.

I think, regardless of ethical codes of conduct, people do act to maximize what they see is in their self-interest most of the time. For example, when you go to a store and compare prices you are simply trying to buy the best product at the lowest price. This is self interest - you don't want to spend your money foolishly.

I am not suggesting that self-interest implies a particular CODE of conduct. I am saying most people want to do what is in their best LONG TERM self-interest, but they may not know what that is, or how long the term is. Self-interest can get you in trouble if you maximize "short term gain against long term pain" (steal money and end up in jail). Generally you would want to do just the opposite and invest in "short term pain for long term gain" (go on a diet and be beautiful and healthy). If you pre-determine to act in a certain way (out of duty, for example), some people might interpret this as just doing what you perceive to be in your best self-interest. It may or may not be.

Psychologist have found that behaviour which 1) follows rules too strictly or 2) (just the opposite) takes too many shortcuts, generally doesn't cope well. There is a "happy medium." The challenge is to find the happy medium, which might be different for all of us. So Paleoanth, you can eat meat or not eat meat, and either way you might be right. I applaud you for considering it.

Acting in your best long term self-interest does imply efficiency (greatest output for least input) or, in other terms, "rationality," often considered a chief virtue.

To tell you the truth, Gotbeer, I wasn't looking to debate the issue; just giving a different perspective. But to answer your question, I believe that falls under many other things that Jesus also said such as, "There is no greater love than this; that a man lay down his life for his friends." along with "Love one another as I have loved you."

True, you cannot use yourself as a basis for which to determine how to treat others if you believe that hurting yourself is appropriate and deserved or even pleasurable, which is why I presumed that most people do not have psychological issues (and you have to admit that generally they are not thinking with a normal thought process and so any moral code is pretty much meaningless in such situations) and would want to be treated with dignity, courtesy and respect themselves.



It would seem that you and Jesus agree on that point since He is quoted as saying, "If a man demands of you your coat, give him your cloak also. If someone compells you to walk with them one mile, walk with them two." and "You have heard it said, love your friends and hate your enemies, but I say to you love your enemies and pray for those that use you despitefully".

Touché, Lisa. It does make my skin crawl to find myself in technical agreement with Jesus, but then, such accidents will happen.

Here's another one that zinged me:

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. (Romans 14:1-2)

A vegetarian is defined (traditionally) as one who does not consume any animal flesh at all; i.e the animal had to be killed. Gelatin and meat are two examples. However, a vegetarian may still eat eggs and dairy, since these products didn't involve the killing of animals.

But as a vegan, you try not to eat or use anything that was made by exploiting animals. But as we all know, almost everything around us is made using the exploitation of animals; roads are paved with animal products, books use animal products for binding, and so on. But I think the part of being vegan is that you are trying to reduce your use of animal products as much as humanly possible. We can't totally eliminate animal products for our lives, but we can try as best as we can.

What I think, is that if you are a vegetarian, you are making an effort to reduce the suffering of animals. You're still using animal products in some shape or form, but you are making a working effort to minimize animal cruelty.

As for PCRM, their smear campaigns are offensive to me, being a vegetarian. Publishing one's private medical records is not smart activism; it's true idiocy, and I can't see how this is helping one person convert to vegetarianism or avoid low-carb diets. Instead, it undermines the vegetarian movement and makes all of us look like wackos.

PETA does the same thing, but I have more respect for PETA, since they have done a TON to help animals. Sadly, you don't hear about it, and instead hear about their latest campaign against meat. PETA's board of directors may be bunch of wackos, but they have inspired non-militant activists, in addition to militant activists, to help reduce animal suffering.

Whew, that was long. My first post, too. Heh.

The moderates in the PETA should get rid of their extremist elements and change their name. I applaud efforts to improve the lives of animals. It's more than needed. However the PETA is turning people away from their cause with their antics.

I'm not a vegetarian but I believe in improving the quality of life for livestock. I think we need to get away from factory farming and return to smaller family farms using organics methods. This is the only way farming will remain sustainable over the long term.

"Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?" Ecclesiastes 3:19-21

We could do this all day.