/lit/ - Literature

>>19782758
>>19782636
However, that is a meta-ethical mistake by failing to see how you can conceptualize your actions in the long term beyond repeating short-term joy. Happiness is obtained by acting properly over a long period of time and being proud of who you are as a person and your accomplishments; it is sustained coexistence and flourishment with reality. For example, being creative in artistic endeavours, being productive at your job, honing your body by lifting weights and being in a long romantic relationship. Those integrate your choices long-term by sustaining the self in coexistence with reality and it makes you happy.

From this, it resolves your mistake and holds my position of why I argue that you're wrong. If you improve your sense of self-esteem and self-worth ( "[a] reevaluation of your perception of your characteristics to find more [joy]," as you defined it, but properly formulated to be more neutral rather than centred on pleasure), you aren't limited to only eating cake but other creative endeavors. If I have self-confidence, I can learn new skills, apply for a joy, take out a girl I like on a date etc. All those actions lead to sustained coexistence with reality to be happy, not merely acting in a hedonistic way.

This problem of hedonism is extremely common among people, especially annoying philosophers who are anti-natalists because they also reach the conclusion that happiness is impossible, only pleasure and then go the next step and formulate that pleasure is just avoiding pain, outright ignoring joy entirely.

So anyway, QED:
self-esteem and self-worth help orient your consciousness towards reality to experience both pleasure and happiness and doing so does not mean that you are condemned to only experience pleasure repeatedly over the long term over acting productively.

>>11967300
>you must do your duty
Oh, and as if that changes anything.

>One of the most destructive anti-concepts in the history of moral philosophy is the term “duty.”An anti-concept is an artificial, unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The term “duty” obliterates more than single concepts; it is a metaphysical and psychological killer: it negates all the essentials of a rational view of life and makes them inapplicable to man’s actions.

>The meaning of the term “duty” is the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest.

>In a mystic theory of ethics, “duty” stands for the notion that man must obey the dictates of a supernatural authority. Even though the anti-concept has been secularized, and the authority of God’s will has been ascribed to earthly entities, such as parents, country, State, mankind, etc., their alleged supremacy still rests on nothing but a mystic edict. Who in hell can have the right to claim that sort of submission or obedience? This is the only proper form—and locality—for the question, because nothing and no one can have such a right or claim here on earth.

>>11526547
You're conflating metaphysics with politics. Idiot.

>>8654252
>people who are part of XXXX collective don't count
Hahahahaha.

>>8612212
>it is your duty to help the weak

>>8419342
The manner he is saying is does not matter. At best, you can argue that it can potentially damage his likelihood of getting customers, but you aren't arguing that. You're simply dismissing his worth.

He has services and time he can provide for a price, the manner he tells his customers to fuck off has no relevance in this situation.

>>8223945
It's even worse if you imagine yourself in the place of the kid, with your father telling the serial killer where to find you
>sorry son, but it's my duty to never lie or else, well, what do you think would happen if EVERYONE lied, so this serial killer absolutely has to know where you are so that he can kill you.
Because of self imposed duty, you would get killed.