You have already posted this here, two months ago. And it seems to be the only way you interact with this website.
From my perspective, the things you wrote are potentially an interesting opening to a debate, but not all of that at the same time. That’s just too much text.
I think the document is actually not bad, but in my opinion it suffers from “it only sounds convincing to those who already agree”. Once the reader disagrees with something, there is almost no argument for that, besides the fact that you said so, plus a recommended book to read.
One specific thing I noticed, is that all your arguments are made from selfish perspective. For example, the only reason to help other people is that doing so can make me feel better. Again, this is the type of thing where if you already agree, you agree, but if you don’t already agree, it leaves you unimpressed.
In the document, I provide arguments for each of my philosophical positions. The recommended readings expand on these arguments and provide responses to potential counterarguments.
I am neither a psychological egoist nor an ethical egoist. On page 5, I list “concern for other sentient beings” as a plausible ultimate motivational consideration. I go on to recommend aiming for peace of mind, arguing that empathic/sympathetic feelings (if one has them) incorporate the welfare of other sentient beings into one’s own state of mind. That said, I note that “in situations in which one doubts that aiming for peace of mind would be in accordance with the preponderance of one’s ultimate motivational considerations, one may appeal directly to those considerations.” (page 6)
You have already posted this here, two months ago. And it seems to be the only way you interact with this website.
From my perspective, the things you wrote are potentially an interesting opening to a debate, but not all of that at the same time. That’s just too much text.
I think the document is actually not bad, but in my opinion it suffers from “it only sounds convincing to those who already agree”. Once the reader disagrees with something, there is almost no argument for that, besides the fact that you said so, plus a recommended book to read.
One specific thing I noticed, is that all your arguments are made from selfish perspective. For example, the only reason to help other people is that doing so can make me feel better. Again, this is the type of thing where if you already agree, you agree, but if you don’t already agree, it leaves you unimpressed.
Thank you for reading and commenting.
In the document, I provide arguments for each of my philosophical positions. The recommended readings expand on these arguments and provide responses to potential counterarguments.
I am neither a psychological egoist nor an ethical egoist. On page 5, I list “concern for other sentient beings” as a plausible ultimate motivational consideration. I go on to recommend aiming for peace of mind, arguing that empathic/sympathetic feelings (if one has them) incorporate the welfare of other sentient beings into one’s own state of mind. That said, I note that “in situations in which one doubts that aiming for peace of mind would be in accordance with the preponderance of one’s ultimate motivational considerations, one may appeal directly to those considerations.” (page 6)