Originally Posted by Fayrra
Okay, so I just have to prove how it's not fair? Well, I'll give it a shot then.
Premise: You and this stranger don't know each other, have no relations, etc. You don't care for that person's feelings, and end up hurting him.
Conclusion: He's hurt, you're fine.
Tell me how that's fair in anyway possible?
An eye for an eye is fair. Getting back at someone when they did something to you is fair. You telling the truth and hurting them is fair. Them just getting hurt when they have done nothing to you isn't.
Oh, and the reminds me, you said you couldn't think of a way to be illogical and fair? Well how about this: A stranger or a friend is about to die. The fair thing to do would be to either choose randomly between them or let them both die, however, the logical thing to do would be to save your friend, the one you care about most. If you don't do this, you'd be illogical, but fair.
Yeah, I do suck at arguing. But anyway, I didn't go in circles. I did not use circular reasoning here. I went from one thing to another, like a chain. And ended up with: It's not reasonable because it's not fair.
All I have to do is prove how it isn't fair, right? Therefore, all I have to do is make it fit in accordance with the definition. I don't need to make you see a logical reason to adopt being nice or rather a reason for you to care about a strangers' feelings (unless me proving that it's fair would make you do that, but that's more like a side-effect, than the actual primary purpose). Because you're probably not going to. All I have to prove is how it's not reasonable of you to not care. This is something in your nature.
The default position for a psychopath is killing people for fun. He has no reason to care for people that he doesn't know because he's naturally born with no emotions such as those. He's the same as you in that respect. He sees no logical reason to care. No reason to not kill strangers because he doesn't care. He doesn't expect for people to not hate him or not kill him back. He thinks of it as perfectly fair. Yet, what he's doing is not fair at all. And any reasonable person can see this. These people have done nothing to him, the only reason he kills them is because he has no bond's with them. He just goes about his daily life; because killing is his daily life. It's nothing personal or anything. If you're in the wrong place, then oh well. If it weren't for that, he wouldn't have killed them.
This, Miburo, is a very extreme version of what you're doing. Now, don't get me wrong here, because I do make weird analogies that seem outrageous:
Everything that matters fits. You not caring, and seeing no reason to care. It being your default position, etc. The only thing that doesn't fit is that you're not hurting them on purpose. It's just like "if they happen to have they're feelings hurt, then oh well."
But the only thing that changes is that it makes you less unreasonable (other than the fact that generally killing people is a lot more worse than hurting they're feelings, I know that's a huge difference as well). The point is, just because you're a shit ton of more reasonable than a psychopath, doesn't change the fact that you're still being unreasonable like one.
Lmao, I guess so. There's a few other one's, too. I heard he turns into sonic the hedgehog in one of them.
I'd do it just because it would be fun. And on some levels, I care.
First off, I corrected myself and said you're not completely irrational and unfair. I know there's a huge difference between purposely going out and doing and just doing it as you go about your daily life, just living. Even though that's what I thought you were doing at first, it turns out it's the latter. But that doesn't change the fact that you're still breaking the principle of the matter. You're still being unfair to them, just a lot less unfair.
Very true, and an interesting notion. But the thought process here is something like this:
Some people do it on purpose, while other's do it on accident when going about their daily lives. In this scenario you're the latter. The main similarity and principle that the former and the latter have in common is that they both don't care (for my analogy, at least). See, I don't expect you or Mal to be nice to people you don't know. That would be a lot of trouble, and it isn't like they are your friends. However, when people accidentally hurt another, they normally care, even if they are strangers. And then they say sorry, because they actually care. That's not you, from what I hear. Because you don't care, you're going to be hurting them when you go about your daily life, and then it's just "Oh fucking well, I don't give a shit, I'm not a pussy, I have no reason to care."
It's not fair for strangers to get hurt just because of that, but what makes it even more unreasonable is just the simple fact that, they're getting hurt, and you still don't care. That's just how you are in your nature. The reason why reasonable people care is because thats' just how they are in their nature. That's their default position. I told you this is an emotion thing. It's not an an objective default stance like atheism. Majority of humans aren't like you anyway, and actually do care about strangers (obviously not as much as one cares for one's friends or family). I don't know where you're getting this as an objective default stance that I have to defeat from. Your reason to not care is you don't care. Their reason to care is that they do care. It's that simple. It's both their defualt nature's. If we analyze it even further it'll just come out with both of us confused. The only reason one is more fair than the other is because one has genuine concern for the pain of other's. The pain that you intentionally or unintentionally caused. That's all. I'll admit, one's more logical while the other is more emotional, but that doesn't make it wrong objectively. What I'm saying is still a fact. Reasonable people care, unreasonable people don't. This is a fact me.
I understand that you're not going out and being a douchbag for no reason. Instead you're indirectly being mean and then not caring about it because you see no logical reason to (unless, of course, it being fair is a logical reason, but it seems more like an emotional reason to me).
I mean, come on, if you hurt someone (intentional or not) when they didn't do anything to you, isn't it only fair to care about it? Isn't it not fair not to?
And by caring, obviously that means you care about their feelings. Like a 'normal' person. Or societies' idea of normal, I wager. Not caring will eventually lead to you hurting someone. You can't escape that. They key is whether you're going to care or not when you hurt them. If you don't it isn't fair, since you're the cause of the pain, but if you do then that means you care about their feelings. That was the whole point of my first post that you responded to anyway, when you said "I'm fair, but I don't care about their feelings." The whole point was in the context of hurting them in some way.
At least answer that bolded question for me. I mean, there's nothing I can really say. I tried the formal debate thing and probably failed. I'm probably just repeating myself and it's probably just pissing you off. This is probably my final bout. If you can't understand it, I'll just have to write you off as somewhat unreasonable for this situation. I understand everything you've said so far, and have tried to comply with it. You can just write me off as a massive idiot, or whatever have you, in return.