[Morality Games]

[quote=Got-Logic;489602]

Humans cannot avoid having a code of ethics anymore than they can avoid having a philosophy.

You are distorting the conventional meanings of the terms code and philosophy if you think everyone has both of them. Conventionally, the term 'code' must be systematic, and people in general are not rigorous enough in thought or feeling to develop any as systematic as a code -- they simply develop habits (they are mostly unaware of -- aka, people do deeds, but they are too automatic in the doing to think much about the deed).

Most people don't have a philosophy on life either, that is, a consistant style of thinking about practical and existential dilemmas with a hope of making the world more comprehensible. The most common solution used by Joe Everyman is just to accept reality as it is presented (ready-made opinions, ready-made values, etc) and to ignore details that would require comprehensive analysis.

If you were to say someone does not require any code of ethics, that in fact would be a code.

No, the term 'require' is rooted in logic -- in philosophical conversations, it amounts to "it must" -- since I know people employ notions (vague impressions) when considering what's what, I know they lack something as concrete as a code. If humans had codes and followed through with them, then their behavior would be more orderly and less flaky.

Unfortunately, many people do attempt to live without a defined, conscious code of ethics. The results are all around us. If you want to live, if you care to feel joy and happiness, you will not achieve it by living your life as a floating abstraction - unaware of what is right and wrong, good or evil.

I think you have an unrealistic view of human psychology. Like all dogmas, a key stipulation of your ideology is that real happiness is not possible unless they leap over to your conception of right and wrong. 'Happiness' as an emotion is a response to a perceived success. Emotions depend on directly on appearances, and only indirectly on actualities.

If happiness were really the only drive there could be life, then why aren't we all choking down pills meant to produce a state of euphoria (such pills exist)? Would you give up a lifetime full of experiences about 50/50 happiness-sadness to hook yourself up to a machine that allowed you to feel happy one-hundred percent of the time?

You say that people do not require values anymore than they do not require sight.

I never said anything remotely like that. What I said was values are to human beings as seeing is to functional eyes. They just are. I don't see the point in inserting the word 'require' (as in must be) when something just is. It's basically like saying books are books because they are books and my book is still a book at 9:00 in the morning.

Ultimately, you are saying people do not require their life. Is your sight of value to you? What is the value of living?

Whatever a person thinks is fine and good -- aka, what they find worth their time.

The moral purpose of anyone's life as defined by Ayn Rand is happiness.

... most thinkers (philosophers, writers, artists, theologians) have maintained happiness is instrumental to existing in the world. I don't see why Rand deserves special attention for essentially copying Aristotle's views on eudemonia (individual well being, human flourishing).

Through a rational code of values people are able to enhance their lives.

Well, 'reason' can certainly help people get perspective on complex situations and thereby find the route most advantageous to them, but there are no authorities higher than themselves which decide they have to do that and it is certainly untrue they can't be happy if they don't.

Even when you wrote that you might value someone else more than you value yourself. What do you actually mean? How can you avoid saying "I" when you say "I love you." If for some reason you were to say "I could not bear to live without this person in my life." You could not avoid saying "I." You could not avoid saying of value to "me."

Are you paying attention and do you even have an argument? Take a look at the posts again. Specifically, the argument was about whether or not I have to value my life more than someone else's. Aka, I have to find my continued existence in this world more valuable than that of my children, my brother, my wife, etc. That is conventionally what the word 'life' refers to -- "ongoing existence within the world." Add the word 'my' to it and it becomes, "my ongoing existence within the world." So, I need to value my ongoing existence within the world more than that of any other person. I, effect, you claim it is logically necessary if I want to be a moral being.

... why should that be the case when it clearly isn't and doesn't need to be? If a person derives sufficient joy from living for others (possible to do, believe it or not) and inflicts no irrepable harm on themselves or the people around them in the process, then who am I to say they shouldn't?