Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

XiphosAletheria t1_j03o9lk wrote

Reply to comment by DirtyOldPanties in Objective Moral Values: Basic Human Needs by DirtyOldPanties

>Finding enjoyment in those things is not the same as finding happiness and I doubt the author meant you could not find joy or pleasure in those things.

Ah, the author had some mystical idea of "happiness" in mind, then, which they have no doubt defined as excluding those things they think ought not to produce it.

>Why does "evolutionary strategy" matter if the fundamental question is how to live one's life? Is parasitism a valid strategy to pursue one's own happiness or self-esteem?

Sure? I mean, you only really get three basic roles to choose from - predator, prey, or parasite. The "productive" types working ordinary jobs are your prey. The rich types who inherit their wealth initially and grow it by gaming the system or exploiting others rather than producing anything themselves are your parasites. And those who murder and rob as they see fit are the predators.

Of course, the metaphor falls apart very quickly if you try to work with it, because the use of the term "parasite" wasn't exactly intellectually honest in the first place. It was just an emotionally loaded term meant to forestall debate.

>I think the article demonstrates quite clearly otherwise. I liked the example of a thief who resents transactions as a nuisance who is in discord with their emotions and what they desire.

You mean the literal straw man, the person who doesn't exist whose fictional emotions you can pretend to understand?

5

DirtyOldPanties OP t1_j03xu5e wrote

> You mean the literal straw man, the person who doesn't exist whose fictional emotions you can pretend to understand?

I don't think it's a strawman when arguments such as these depend on introspection. It's not as though people don't understand (in an emotional sense, not a philosophical one or scientific one) what emotions are or have never felt then.

2

iiioiia t1_j07bzfb wrote

> Ah, the author had some mystical idea of "happiness" in mind, then, which they have no doubt defined as excluding those things they think ought not to produce it.

Are you not kind of doing the same here, assuming that the author's take is necessarily wrong and yours is not?

>> Why does "evolutionary strategy" matter if the fundamental question is how to live one's life? Is parasitism a valid strategy to pursue one's own happiness or self-esteem?

> Sure?

What if it isn't actually though? Like, it may "work" (you do not literally die), but whether parasitism is optimal for the overall system or even yourself as an individual (if you consider things like systems theory, emergence, consciousness, etc) seems rather complicated.

> I mean, you only really get three basic roles to choose from - predator, prey, or parasite.

What about neutrality (which could be a blend of these, or something else)?

> Of course, the metaphor falls apart very quickly if you try to work with it, because the use of the term "parasite" wasn't exactly intellectually honest in the first place. It was just an emotionally loaded term meant to forestall debate.

a) That isn't the only reason it falls apart.

b) How do you know that "the term "parasite" wasn't exactly intellectually honest in the first place. It was just an emotionally loaded term meant to forestall debate", and that the phenomenon you mentioned isn't affecting you in your evaluation?

0