[bheadmaster]

> It seems rather reasonable to me. If there is a highest good and it is not myself, then sacrificing a lower good (me) for a higher good is the correct move, as long as there isn't an even higher rule that prohibits me from doing so.

The assumption that "higher good" should be important to me more than my own life is laughable. Why should we be just slaves to the whatever group of people that decides what "higher good" is?

[BasedGroyper99]

> The assumption that "higher good" should be important to me more than my own life is laughable.

I don't think it is laughable at all. People across the planet, history and culture all identified a highest good, which clearly isn't one's self-preservation. For one because then there are multiple highest goods which are all in competition with each other, and also because at some point we die, so all our effort ends up being futile.

> Why should we be just slaves to the whatever group of people that decides what "higher good" is?

I don't think it is decided by anyone the same way 2+2=4 isn't decided. It is recognized. But if you don't trust other humans to decide or even know what the highest good is, why would you trust yourself. Aren't you just a human as well?

[bheadmaster]

> People across the planet, history and culture all identified a highest good, which clearly isn't one's self-preservation. For one because then there are multiple highest goods which are all in competition with each other

You correctly recognize that "highest good" is not a unified thing, and that every person has their own opinion on what "highest good" is. Why, then, do you still believe in an objective "highest good"? There is no "good", there is only "good for whom". Whom does your "highest good" serve? Anyone that claims to know what "the one true highest good" is is a scam artist trying to profit off others' stupidity.

> I don't think it is decided by anyone the same way 2+2=4 isn't decided. It is recognized.

No, "good" is an evaluation, and exist only inside human minds. Sometimes, several people agree on what "good" is and join in collaboration. That doesn't mean there is such a thing as an "universal good", "good for everyone", unless you throw out any self-interest as "bad", as our personal interests are often in conflict with others'.

> But if you don't trust other humans to decide or even know what the highest good is, why would you trust yourself. Aren't you just a human as well?

Because there is no reason anyone else but me would fundamentally care about my well being. I fundamentally care about my well being, so I am the only one qualified to make such decisions. Not my president, not my priest, not my community - only me.

[BasedGroyper99]

> No, "good" is an evaluation, and exist only inside human minds.

I think we fundamentally disagree on that. But it was an interesting conversation.

[sclarisse]

> But if you don't trust other humans to decide or even know what the highest good is, why would you trust yourself. Aren't you just a human as well?

Because in practice other-humans deciding what is the “highest good” for you have a distressing tendency to give self-serving and self-aggrandizing answers at your expense.

Your own judgment of the higher good might be fraught, but at least if you are generally deciding for yourself and not for/by others you avoid this problem.

[archon1410]

What? Would you not jump in the front of a running train or a car to save someone you love or care for? Your partner or your children, for example? Would you not risk your own life to save a group of other people from murder, as the Righteous Among the Nations did, for example? If you would, then you already believe in a higher good than your own life. If you wouldn't, that's a rather sad life and ideology you have.

[bheadmaster]

> Would you not jump in the front of a running train or a car to save someone you love or care for?

The question is not about saving someone who I love or care for, but rather some "higher good", which seems to be defined in terms of class hierarchy (dharma vs. mere peasant).

If I die to save someone I care about, that's not because they are better than me, but simply because I care about them. If you can't differentiate between the two, that's a rather sad life and ideology you have.

> Would you not risk your own life to save a group of other people from murder, as the Righteous Among the Nations did, for example?

No, I would not give my life to save a bunch of strangers. My life is much more valuable to me than theirs.

[archon1410]

> The question is not about saving someone who I love or care for, but rather some "higher good", which seems to be defined in terms of class hierarchy (dharma vs. mere peasant).

Dharma is not "defined" in class terms, Dharma simply means virtue, righteousness, correct conduct and so no, and "class terms" might be an aspect of it for it. In any case it isn't the only "higher good" around.

> If I die to save someone I care about, that's not because they are better than me, but simply because I care about them.

You recognise that it is possible to care about and care for someone or something other than you, even at your own expense. And it is possible to care other even when they are strangers. We know that because such people do exist.

It is not about others being "better" than you, but a simple recognition that things that are not you also have value (in of themselves, or/and for you). There is nothing more laughable than the narrow egoism of "only I matter".

[bheadmaster]

> There is nothing more laughable than the narrow egoism of "only I matter".

There is nothing more laughable than a layman being manipulated into thinking that killing himself for ideals somehow makes him noble.