Simple questions of right and wrong

[StrictlyLogical]

Eioul

 

 

At one point I was attempting to highlight the very important difference between a morality and "feelings" of right and wrong based on faith and duty (mystical morality) and Rand's which takes into account chosen goals and the nature of reality.  The end result was far from clear but I was trying to convey a "sense" of this vast difference...   when I consider my former mystical self (things were "just wrong" or "just right" as if the very stuff of the universe declared it so) and the "feeling" I had which was morality, right and wrong, I can hardly fathom what those mental contents were (they were in a real sense directed and connected to nothing in reality)...only delusions... mystical imaginings ... anyhow, the journey from that "sort" or morality to the one of Objectivism is not insignificant in the differences of essential fundamentals of its nature.  It almost becomes counterproductive in some sense to use the same word to describe these vastly different things.

 

Most laypeople I have met (as opposed to ethicists or philosophers) actually determine Objectivist morality not to be a morality "at all" when described to them... and according to their kinds of morality it does not fit their mould.

 

 

In any case I was hoping (and I do believe) a moderator such as yourself will do much better than I in helping tjfields to the extent that help is genuinely desired.  

 

 

-SL

[tjfields]

Eiuol,

 

From post #172:

 

“What Rand does is not using an "is" to define an "ought", what she does is explain a goal of life is to live based on the fundamental choice between your existence or nonexistence. Death needs no action, so morality for that just... makes no sense, it takes no planning, nothing is even required as a code of action. Life needs action, so a code of action is required there. [...] With a goal of life requiring action, one would need to take actions that will further one's life. In reality, only certain actions will further life, so that's where you can get a non-subjective answer to what one ought to do. In other words, it's deriving an ought from a goal of life, not simply a descriptive fact/statement.”

 

I understand what you wrote. Can you explain how or why a code of action needed to further one’s life translates into morality or ethical behavior? For example, if I choose to live, I ought to breathe. Does this make breathing a moral or ethical action? If so, how?

 

Also from post #172:

 

“I said that you would not know at all if the stranger will be a value or not, but you'd never find out either way  if you just go off and kill them just because you slept on a rock the night before. Like anything in life, usually acting on an impulse without any thought is just plain irrational. It's a good, positive thing to find out because at best, other people may be a great value to you, and destroying them accomplishes absolutely nothing except an irreparable loss. You are almost right about what I said, I'd just clarify that it's short-sighted to make *any* assumption of the value others is or might be before gathering any information. As you said in the scenario, nothing at all is known, so it would be foolish to kill them - other people existing is not a threat to you. I hope you can see how you might reason from here to think about rights in a much larger social context.”

 

It sounds like you are saying that it would be wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach because it may be “an irreparable loss”. If we assume that you are correct and it is a fact that the killing of the man is an irreparable loss, how does this translate into a wrong ethical action?

[tjfields]

Harrison Danneskjold,

 

In post #174, you wrote, “If I asked you to explain the mechanics of gravity, given enough time and detail, we would find fuzzy approximates in YOUR knowledge as well. This doesn't make them invalid. You're comparing a half formed but rational concept with blatant irrationality.”

 

If you asked me to explain the mechanics of gravity and I only had fuzzy approximates and subjective, undefined terms for my answers, I would not attempt to explain the mechanics of gravity, I would simple say that I am not capable of answering the question or providing an explaination.

 

When I asked in the original post if it was wrong to kill the man who washed up n the beach, you answered (from post #33), “Yes, it would've been wrong to kill the man on the beach.” You did not include any disclaimers stating that your answer was a half formed but rational concept. If you had included such a disclaimer, I would not have asked you any questions, but I took your answer at face value and, through the proceeding posts, asked you to explain you answer and help me to understand from where you answer came. I am not accusing you of being irrational nor crediting you with omniscience, your straight forward and direct answer to the question in the original post lead me to believe that you could explain your answer.

 

Also from post #174 you wrote, “As for objectively defining happiness- NO!!

You've officially depleted my patience with that request; nobody who speaks English needs such a definition.”

 

Can you explain why you will not define happiness with anything other than everyone who speaks English knows the definition? I asked you to provide a definition of happiness because the four quotes from post #148 indicate that your answer to the question in the original post was based on or relied on the concept of happiness. Happiness, however, is a subjective terms since it means different things to different people. If there is one universal, objective definition of happiness, please tell me what it is because I am missing something.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Tjfields:

Happiness is a state of mind which is pleasurable and self evident to whomever experiences it.

True happiness, as distinct from immoral forms of happiness, stems from the joy of the fact of existence and isn't irrational or self destructive in any way.

I contend that almost all of the conceivable reasons one could give for the op's action would ultimately be unrealistic, illogical or self destructive.

Any reasoning exempt from such flaws would be moral.

[Eiuol]

"I understand what you wrote. Can you explain how or why a code of action needed to further one’s life translates into morality or ethical behavior? For example, if I choose to live, I ought to breathe. Does this make breathing a moral or ethical action? If so, how?"

Yes, but that's trivial, especially since breathing is automatic. I don't quite understand your question though. All I'm really saying is that a code of what one "ought" to do is morality, and that the only way to get to an ought is in reference to a goal. Are you asking why life is the goal, or are you asking why a code of action that furthers life should be morality?

 

"It sounds like you are saying that it would be wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach because it may be “an irreparable loss”. If we assume that you are correct and it is a fact that the killing of the man is an irreparable loss, how does this translate into a wrong ethical action?"

Yeah, but to clarify, what I mean is that to kill a person would make it so they can't be a value or a disvalue, and you can't fix it if you make a mistake. It translates into an unethical action because it just adds on to reasons not to murder. 1) you'd be taking an action without gathering any information at all, and 2) you'd be making an assumption that the stranger is a disvalue of some kind before you have a reason to make that judgment. It's just icing on the cake to say that if you do make a mistake, there is no fixing it. Focus on 1 and 2: the immorality is irrationality since rational action is the only way to get at what is good for your life.

[Eiuol]

As for objectively defining happiness- NO!!

You've officially depleted my patience with that request; nobody who speaks English needs such a definition.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/happiness/

[tjfields]

Harrison Danneskjold,

 

From post #179, “Happiness is a state of mind which is pleasurable and self evident to whomever experiences it.

True happiness, as distinct from immoral forms of happiness, stems from the joy of the fact of existence and isn't irrational or self destructive in any way.

I contend that almost all of the conceivable reasons one could give for the op's action would ultimately be unrealistic, illogical or self destructive.”

 

 

This post raises many questions and it appears that the subjective is still present. Please help me understand.

 

How is happiness self evident to whomever experiences it? Is there a way that I can come to the realization that I am happy by examining the facts of reality or is it something that I just “know” or “feel”? Can one examine the facts of reality and come to the realization that they are not happy?

 

If happiness is a state of mind which is pleasurable and self evident to whomever experiences it, how can it be immoral? Is an immoral form of happiness immoral for everyone or only the one who experiences it?

 

What is the joy of the fact of existence? Since existence exists and your, or mine or anyone’s, thoughts about existence whether good or bad, joyful or not joyful, does not change anything about the fact of existence, how does “joy” apply to existence? Are you implying that I, or anyone, should experience joy, and therefore happiness, by the mere fact of existence?

 

What do you mean by, “isn’t irrational or self destructive in any way”? Are you suggesting that a person cannot have true happiness if they are self destructive in any way? What does “self-destructive” mean? Is “self destructive” something that applies to everyone or only the one that experiences it? What if someone is unknowingly or mistakenly self destructive (e.g. a person who smoked cigarettes before the health consequences were known or understood)? Are they not truly happy and are experiencing a form of immoral happiness, and therefore not moral or ethical, because of error or ignorance?

  

You stated that you contend that almost all of the conceivable reasons one could give for the actions taken in the original post would ultimately be unrealistic, illogical or self destructive. If someone experiences a pleasurable state of mind and it is self evident that he or she is happy and he or she contends that almost all of the conceivable reasons one could give for the actions taken in the original post would ultimately not be unrealistic, illogical or self destructive, would his or her answer to the question in the original post be as valid as yours?

[Devil's Advocate]

Your post about utility was slightly ambiguous, if you meant to imply consent as an integral factor. But if you recognize that then i agree.

Yes, conscent is an integral factor, e.g., the sanction of the victim.

 

About ethical reciprocity:

Morality is almost invariably used, nowadays, in a social sense. Ie: ethics is about how to treat other people.

That's not how Rand conceived of it and that's the source of this intransigence you're seeing.

Hmmm....

 

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html

 

As to ethical reciprocity on a desert island...

 

"One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts." ~ Yorba Proverb, Nigeria

http://www.unification.net/ws/theme015.htm

 

 

I get what you mean about it because I've also seen ethics as a social matter for most of my life. But Objectivist morality isn't about how to treat other people; it's about how to treat yourself.

Ethics is a game with only one player. Politics is social.

That said, if you apply ethical reciprocity to politics (which is how i think you mean it) you'll find it directly in line with individual rights.

It stems from the recognition of objective values; those preferences (such as oxygen or property) which are universally moral.

---

Its a political matter. But as a political matter i really can't imagine how that could contradict rand.

It doesn't contradict Rand because it uses oneself as the ethical source of the evaluation; which means it's an extension of how one treates oneself.  Much of the argument against ethical reciprocity appears to be directed at Kant, while marginalizing Rand's own use of it, so it appears to be more a conflict between author's paraphrasing than a serious rebuttal of ethical reciprocity per se.  At least I have yet to find any plausible fault with Rand's promotion of contractural animals who are obligated by the nature of reality to, "respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized".

 

As to your claim, et al, "Objectivist morality isn't about how to treat other people; it's about how to treat yourself;" a contractural animal wouldn't draw many partners with such a unilateral practice of ethics.  The same ethical claim can be made of looting, but perhaps it's a matter for marketing... or spin...

Edited August 27, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[tjfields]

Eiuol,

 

In post #180 you wrote, “All I'm really saying is that a code of what one "ought" to do is morality, and that the only way to get to an ought is in reference to a goal. Are you asking why life is the goal, or are you asking why a code of action that furthers life should be morality?”

 

The phrase “a code of action that furthers life” is of importance here. What does it mean?

 

The example that I gave of “If I choose to live, I ought to breathe” is a statement of fact. This fact is determined by the nature of being human; if a human does not ever breathe the human dies. This fact is not subjective; it can be consistently confirmed through the observation of reality. Since a human will die if a human does not ever breathe, then breathing “furthers life” assuming that “furthers life” is defined as enabling a human to remain alive.

 

Now back to the question in the original post: was it wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach? Most of those who answered this post, including you, say that it is wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach. To determine the whether or not your answer is morally, or ethically, correct, we will make an “ought” statement: “If you choose to live, you ought to not kill the man who washed up on the beach. Since you killed the man who washed up on the beach, your action was wrong or immoral” Do you agree with this statement?

 

If you do agree, this statement cannot be used to determine that the action was immoral if “furthers life” is defined as enabling a human to remain alive. Killing the man that washed up on the beach did not stop me from living; I am still alive. At most, the answer would be that killing the man on the beach would be amoral because while it did not prevent me from living, it did not enable me to remain alive either.

 

If, however, you define “furthers life” as “living a good life”, or “being fulfilled”, or “being happy” or anything other than enabling a human to remain alive, as it appears that others who answered this post do, your definition becomes subjective. It can mean different things to different people.

 

What am I missing? Please explain so that I can understand from where you are coming.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Devils advocate:

Looting isn't selfish in any way at all.

Is heroine addiction selfish? If someone were asking if that will make them truly happy, how would you respond?

Because drug addiction is aanalogous to murder theft and rape, in terms of selfish gain.

It's hard to fully appreciate but it's absolutely crucial to grasp:

To sabotage your future for a momentary whim is about as selfish as altruism.

[Eiuol]

What am I missing? Please explain so that I can understand from where you are coming.

An malnourished person is alive, and so is a well-nourished person. But the former is clearly something along the lines of "going downhill" in the long term. Do you see the difference there, and how one is better in terms of the ability to carry on the actions needed to live? I don't mean furthers life as "the kind of actions that are in accord with the type of life I like", or "being fulfilled", or "being happy". I mean furthers your ability to live at all which isn't measured only in terms of being alive or not at this moment. I'm talking about being able to continue living long-term. You could say "that which causes happiness is life-furthering", but that's because, as Rand would probably argue, anything that is life furthering will create happiness eventually. More or less, it comes out of the idea that man has a nature as a rational animal, and what is in accordance with that nature is moral and will then necessarily lead to (long-term) happiness. That's in contrast to say, the Stoics, who thought that being moral doesn't necessarily imply feeling happy eventually, all that matters is if you do the moral thing.

 

I didn't answer all your questions, but I think this is good for now.

[Eiuol]

stuff

I meant to clarify, that link I gave earlier explains many existing views about what happiness is. Happiness is not at all merely self-evident, and happiness is sometimes not even described as an emotion, or happiness might be described in only emotional terms.

[tjfields]

Eiuol,

 

You wrote in post #186, “I don't mean furthers life as "the kind of actions that are in accord with the type of life I like", or "being fulfilled", or "being happy". I mean furthers your ability to live at all which isn't measured only in terms of being alive or not at this moment. I'm talking about being able to continue living long-term.”

 

You have simply added a new, subjective term to your explanation. What does “long-term” mean?

[Devil's Advocate]

Devils advocate:

Looting isn't selfish in any way at all.

Is heroine addiction selfish? If someone were asking if that will make them truly happy, how would you respond?

Because drug addiction is aanalogous to murder theft and rape, in terms of selfish gain.

It's hard to fully appreciate but it's absolutely crucial to grasp:

To sabotage your future for a momentary whim is about as selfish as altruism.

My reference to looting was only to demonstrate how supporting a unilateral ethical view, e.g., "It's all about me", sanctions quite a bit of undesirable behavior towards others...

 

More interesting to me is how an Objectivist, as a contractural animal dependent others to contract with, can reconcile "It's all about me" with "mutual benefit".  Specifically, does a rationally selfish individual interact with ethical peers or not?  Clearly not as a means to others ends, but also clearly not without regard to others.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Alright, tj fields.

1: happiness is actually something you just feel. You can't determine whether or not you're happy from the facts of reality; only the facts of your own mind, observable through introspection.

2: happiness is immoral when it's irrational or harmful.

A Christian who is happy to have been baptized is irrationality happy because that emotion has nothing to do with facts or logic.

A heroine addict who is happy to get their fix is harmfully happy for obvious reasons.

A suicide bomber who happily anticipates the afterlife is both.

Only rationally selfish happiness is valid.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

3: true joy is the joy of existence, which means:

To be happy THAT you're alive.

This is crucial because that joy, the love OF LIFE, is our ultimate value.

To gain and keep that value requires us to maintain survival AND enjoy our lives, simultaneously, in a very precise manner.

4: self destruction is whatever stifles, contradicts or excludes this love OF life.

It is anything which decreases your capacity to continue living and living well.

5: reality is our standard of measurement.

If I call something white while you call it black, one of us must be wrong.

The actual color involved is the determining factor.

So if someone claimed that it's rationally selfish to murder strangers, i would flatly deny it- but at the end of the day it doesn't matter much whether they concede it or not.

What would matter would be if they tried to practice it, concretely.

---

You can call poison food all you want; it won't cease to be poison.

And if you eat poison on the premise that it's food, reality will refute you.

The same applies to the op.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Devils advocate: you're still thinking of morality as a social issue.

Ethics is single player; politics is coop.

The proper hierarchy:

1: I love my life. It's wonderful to exist!

-how should i act in order to continue living happily? (answer: rational selfishness)

2: here is an entity which is like me; i hypothesize it also has a mind (epistemological issue; supremacy of reason)

3: if it is like me then it should act like me (concept of man)

And from three you can apply rational selfishness to all men or invoke reciprocity; either works.

Step four is the concept of rights.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Tangential: the concept of man is so important that I've been wondering what happens when it's malformed.

I believe a failure to grasp any part of it is called "autism".

[tjfields]

Harrison Danneskjold,

 

From post #190 (my questions are in italics)

 

1: happiness is actually something you just feel. You can't determine whether or not you're happy from the facts of reality; only the facts of your own mind, observable through introspection.

 

How is this different from God? You cannot determine God whether or not God exists from the facts of reality it is something you just feel.

 

If happiness is something that I just feel, how do I know that I am happy?

 

If I feel happy but you say that I am not happy or my happiness is wrong, who is right and how do we know?

2: happiness is immoral when it's irrational or harmful.
 

If happiness is something you just feel and you can’t determine whether or not you are happy from the facts of reality (point 1), how do you determine that happiness is immoral when it’s irrational or harmful? If I feel happy, because happiness is something that I just feel, then how can it be immoral? If happiness is something that cannot be determined from the facts of reality, then how can you determine what it isn't?

A Christian who is happy to have been baptized is irrationality happy because that emotion has nothing to do with facts or logic.

 

If happiness is something you just feel and you can’t determine whether or not you're happy from the facts of reality (point 1), then why and how is a Christian irrationality happy since you can’t determine happiness from the facts of reality? If a Christian feels happy then the Christian is happy.

A heroine addict who is happy to get their fix is harmfully happy for obvious reasons.

 

If happiness is something you just feel and you can’t determine whether or not you're happy from the facts of reality (point 1), then why and how is a heroin addict harmfully happy since you can’t determine happiness from the facts of reality? If a herion addict feels happy then the herion addict is happy.

A suicide bomber who happily anticipates the afterlife is both.

 

If happiness is something you just feel and you can’t determine whether or not you're happy from the facts of reality (point 1), then why and how is a suicide bomber both irrationality and harmfully happy since you can’t determine happiness from the facts of reality? If a suicide bomber feels happy then the suicide bomber is happy.

 

Only rationally selfish happiness is valid.

 

If happiness is something you just feel and you can’t determine whether or not you're happy from the facts of reality (point 1), then why and how is rationally selfish happiness the only happiness that is valid? If I feel happy, then I am happy - there can be no caveats or qualifiers to this since, as you stated, happiness is something that I just feel and I can't determine whether or not I am happy from the facts of reality.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Happiness is a feeling which one cent determine through introspection.

If you'd prefer to consider introspection another form of sensation then by all means; there's some validity to that.

The difference between finding the state of your own emotions through introspection, and finding the existential state of God, is one of logic.

---

If you know the batting average of a baseball player you can surmise their future athletic success.

You cannot use that information to predict a hurricane in Cuba.

If you know the state of your own mind then you know the state of your own mind; your self evident emotions. You cannot use that to determine anything beyond your own mind.

Emotions are not tools of cognition, but they are emotions.

---

Your emotions are self evident to you. And, to be clear, Im not referring to the raw quality of such emotions.

But all emotions are caused by something specific in concrete reality.

They are responses to the condition of your values in any given circumstance.

The cause of any given feeling is also observable through introspection, but requires a bit more effort to find.

---

As to the validity of such feelings, i don't consider them to be ends in themselves.

To flourish rationally necessarily entails happiness but that's not its justification.

To flourish is the end in itself.

[tjfields]

Harrison Danneskjold,

 

From post #195, “If you know the batting average of a baseball player you can surmise their future athletic success. You cannot use that information to predict a hurricane in Cuba.”

 

What does this mean and how is it relevant? Does this answer the questions of how one determines what the right kind of happiness is, whether it is moral or immoral, given that happiness is something you just feel and you can’t determine whether or not you're happy from the facts of reality?

 

Also from post #195:

 

 “As to the validity of such feelings, i don't consider them to be ends in themselves.

To flourish rationally necessarily entails happiness but that's not its justification.

To flourish is the end in itself.”

You have introduced another undefined and subjective term: “flourish.” Is there an objective definition for “flourish” or does one simple feel what it is like happiness?

[Eiuol]

You have simply added a new, subjective term to your explanation. What does “long-term” mean?

Basically, indefinitely into the future and in this case the span of your lifetime with everything that extends it, while short-term is a delimited range of time, like one month for example.

[tjfields]

Eiuol,

 

From post #197, “Basically, indefinitely into the future and in this case the span of your lifetime with everything that extends it, while short-term is a delimited range of time, like one month for example.”

 

Thank you for the definition.

 

Now, to continue from the earlier posts:

 

In post #184, I reformed the moral question to an ought statement of : “If you choose to live, you ought to not kill the man who washed up on the beach. Since you killed the man who washed up on the beach, your action was wrong or immoral”

 

I continued in post #184 with, “, this statement cannot be used to determine that the action was immoral if “furthers life” is defined as enabling a human to remain alive. Killing the man that washed up on the beach did not stop me from living; I am still alive.”

 

You responded in post #186 in part with, “I mean furthers your ability to live at all which isn't measured only in terms of being alive or not at this moment. I'm talking about being able to continue living long-term.”

 

Now we apply your definition of “long-term” to your statement from post #186 and re-write it as: I mean furthers your ability to live at all which isn't measured only in terms of being alive or not at this moment. I'm talking about being able to continue living indefinitely into the future and in this case the span of your lifetime with everything that extends it.

 

Do you agree?

 

Is so, we can now re-write the ought statement from above as: If you choose to live, you ought to not kill the man who washed up on the beach. Since you killed the man who washed up on the beach, your action was wrong or immoral because the action did not further your ability to continue living indefinitely into the future.

 

Do you agree or do you think the statement should be written in another way (if so, please write it the way you think it should read)?

 

However, the rewritten statement, including the concept of long-term, still does not address the position from post #184: Killing the man that washed up on the beach did not stop me from living; I am still alive.

 

Now with the introduction of the concept of long-term, is it your argument that it was wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach because it is possible that over the course of “indefinitely into the future”, a future which is unknown, there may be some way, somehow, at some point, that the act of killing the man may affect my ability to continue living?

[Devil's Advocate]

Devils advocate: you're still thinking of morality as a social issue.

Ethics is single player; politics is coop.

The proper hierarchy:

1: I love my life. It's wonderful to exist!

-how should i act in order to continue living happily? (answer: rational selfishness)

2: here is an entity which is like me; i hypothesize it also has a mind (epistemological issue; supremacy of reason)

3: if it is like me then it should act like me (concept of man)

And from three you can apply rational selfishness to all men or invoke reciprocity; either works.

Step four is the concept of rights.

Justice is a social issue dealing with individuals who transgress.  Morality precedes justice; being derived from the nature of reality in the identity of Man, i.e., Nature's Man; the historical reasoning being that Nature's God produces Nature's Man according to Nature's Laws.  I believe this can be referred to as the Natural Hierarchy of Reality in which Nature's God acts as a final arbiter, and Nature's Man is held acountable to natural law; or as Francis Bacon observes, "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."

 

Essentially, if one loves life (your point 1), one has already concluded that life is good ; words like love and wonderful being primarily moral adjectives describing good; meaning some approximation of morality has been addressed prior to your point 1.  So we can agree that rights (as regulations) are derived from morality by society further down on your list, however morality appears to me (according to your list), to be presumed, i.e., taken for granted.

 

You begin with a moral observation (point 1) that implies Man is a moral animal, or that Nature's Man exhibits ethical behavior; so far, so good...  so how does a characteristic common to Man (ethical behavior) become delimited to an individual, i.e., "Ethics is single player"?  It seems to me that if Man A interacts with Man B, the individual ethics of both parties are combined by interaction; not removed.  Therefore morality is both individual and social, no?

 

Tangential: the concept of man is so important that I've been wondering what happens when it's malformed.

I believe a failure to grasp any part of it is called "autism".

Cognitive disorder may be closer to the mark...

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Tj fields:

What i was getting at with batting averages is that feeling your own emotions is different from feeling "the holy ghost".

Im fumbling for the specific word here but it's a concept from formal logic.

In a syllogism you prove that a is b and b is c, and it's only valid if they're all somehow connected, right?

Well to call something moral or immoral, based exclusively on your feelings, is wrong BECAUSE it isn't logically connected; it's like using batting averages to predict the weather.

And whatever a disconnected syllogism is called, that's what i mean.

---

Only value achievements which further the ultimate value are valid and to flourish is to retain that value indefinitely.

The ultimate value is ones love of ones own life and that's the only way to integrate survival and happiness without conflict; conflictary desires necessitate misery.

You don't have to live and you don't have to be happy.

But if you want both then there is only one way to have them both.