From: "Phil Roberts, Jr." 




malenor wrote:
> 
> "Phil Roberts, Jr."  wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
 
> 
> > Yes.  Here is the reason YOU AND I (as opposed to an ideally rational
> > agent)  "ought" to conform.  Because, as interminably
> > self-interested organisms, the self-worth which ensues from conforming
> > to the CI will make us happier more contented beings.  Yeaaaaaahh!!!
> > In other words, on many occasions it is emotionally selfish to be
> > physically unselfish (e.g., Mother Teresa).
> 
> Altruism is not total self-sacrifice but the attempt to symbolize in
> practice transcendent principles of goodwill toward other living
> beings. It is just a way of "sacrificing" certain lower, empirical
> principles for higher, transcendent ones. The emotional results are
> often very pleasant, sometimes a bit exquisite to the point of almost
> suffering. But if these results are your goal, you are far less likely
> to achieve them. The goal is not the emotion, but the symbolization of
> Ideas.
> 

While I would say if the good feeling is your entire motivation, then
you are less rational and less moral, I'm afraid I can't agree that you
would be better off not seeking self-worth or happiness as a conscious 
objective, although there are lots of folks who would undoubtedly agree.
However, I would say that to the extent you can come to a deeper realization
of why you are seeking self-worth, you're ability to do so can be maximized
a bit, although at first its a rather emotionally devastating thing to have
to confront the fact that your entire life is in one way or another an 
attempt to erect an alter to your own magnificence.  But, somehow in 
accepting this, there is a certain redemption, if you don't mind it
in those terms -- a feeling that you've had a little more courage and
honesty than some folks perhaps.  Is like going past the Victorian
era of sex, in which you still think it pretty vulgar stuff, but you've
come to accept that you are what you are, and there's just no getting
around it.


> > I think we are possibly in agreement here.  I would say that to
> > the extent that the purpose in conforming to the CI was strictly
> > the increase in pleasure and contentment it brings, that that would
> > be a LESS RATIONAL motive than if it were done out of a genuine
> > concern for the well-fare of others.  In other words, I would maintain,
> > somewhat similarly to like Kant I believe, and contra to the utilarians,
> > that the rationality/morality
> > stems, not from the increase in happiness which ensues, not even in
> > the world, but rather from THE INCREASE IN OBJECTIVITY.  That's
> > because 'being rational' isn't a matter of being
> > happy, but rather a matter of 'being able to "see" what is going on',
> > i.e., 'being objective'.
> >
 
> The objective realization of transcendent principles is the goal. But
> you are omitting a great deal of theory on how this goal is to be
> achieved.

Not sure I understand you here, but part of one's strategy would be coming
to accept that one's life is not something to be taken anywhere near as seriously
as you had once thought, that its pretty much a game of convincing yourself
you're hot stuff, while at the same time understanding that the whole reason
you're doing it is because you've become a littel to rational for your own
good:

  'A Divergent Theory of Emotional Instability'
   http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/dada/90/emostab.htm



pr