Welcome to Gaia! ::

Purete

This is all true, save the part about rules. This doesn't solve her troubles with ethics. In fact, Absurdism denounces any ethics at all. As you said, "there are no rules." Even if something good became of a bad action, you've still done something bad. And I highly doubt that you go around doing bad in hopes that good things will come to others through it. Intentions matter.

If you believe there are no rules, why are you still using terms like "good" and "bad?" We must be ever so careful not to contradict ourselves, lest we look like fools.

If I was drunk driving and accidentally killed you, but "I really did not mean to do it" would it be okay? Or (if you had seen Taxi Driver) what if I killed a man in cold blood, but that same man had kept you in captivity that would have lasted indefinitely; would you have slighted me for my wrongdoing afterward?
Does the man who thinks about killing his co-workers, but never does, deserve a greater Hell than the man who lets his baby suffocate in his car because he forgot the keys inside?

But you are right, and I am being facetious to prove a point. Absurdism is a philosophy without morals. There is no real good or bad in the world anymore than there is an up or down in space. The universe we live in is completely chaotic and works on its own rules that "cares" very little about how we think it should act. And if our intent does little to affect the world around us, than how can we be held responsible for the result?

NomNomNominal

whynaut: I guess the reason I don't get along too well with Absurdism has to do with probability. For the most part, well-intended and rational actions have a higher probability of bringing a positive influence than a negative one. ... So I guess I'm looking for a way to minimize the probability of my causing harm to others.

I am still not sure. I personally just see "positive" and "negative" as just words. But that is a debate that cannot ever be won. So instead I will say this:
You are worried that, regardless of your intent, the results of your actions will be negative. This makes you feel guilt, and therefore harms you, doesn't it? Do you think that everyone is intending to make you feel bad in this way? If are not trying to make you feel bad, then they too are in the same boat you are in. Regardless of the their intent, they are causing negative actions toward you. If they realized this, they might feel guilty as well and this absurdly endless cycle would continue.
The only way to break this cycle would to not feel guilty about your actions; this would absolve them of their potential guilt, and so forth.
On the other hand, if others are intentionally causing you harm in this way by making you feel guilt, than why should you feel sympathy for such monsters?

The philosophy pf Absurdism cannot amend your actions because it states that you never had any control of your actions to begin with. Absurdism can only show you that thinking this could be directly and solely your fault is completely absurd lol .

whynaut:
Do I feel guilt and does that harm me? Yes. Do I "think that everyone is intending to make you feel bad in this way?" No, definitely not. Your statement that "regardless of the their intent, they are causing negative actions" is flawed because it omits my belief that the actions also have the probability of creating a positive result. You will need to remodel your "cycle" to incorporate this probability before I can argue further in this particular point.

As for the scenario where others are intentionally causing me harm, I guess that instance is when I'll move over to categorical imperative. Call me soft, but for the most part, I'd rather "turn the other cheek" to dissipate the harm... or run like hell.

I guess your last paragraph pretty much points out why I disagree with Absurdism. I believe (at this moment) that you cannot even tell whether or not you have any control of your actions. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. Absurdism only works if the latter is true.


Purete:
I've yet to fully digest what you said on 7th Nov. Instinct tells me you make sense, but I need to really sit down and think it through. I'll give you a reply later.

Purete, I am not saying I do not believe you, but the idea that you would only care about intent instead of action, I find, is an easy thing to say from an academic standpoint rather than a real-life standpoint. Though you seem like a selfless soul, I wonder: if you took the first 2 examples and applied them to a friend or family member (instead of to yourself) would you be so caviler to praise intent over action.

If a drunk driver killed your best friend and did not mean it, you would not admonish him for his negligence or indifference to anyone else's potential safety for driving drunk in the first place?

If a man had kidnapped your child, and a murderer killed that man and inadvertently freed your son or daughter, would you be thanking your blessings that your child was free or would you rather your child was still kidnapped and the murder had not taken place?

But I am only trying to pluck at your heartstrings a bit to show the etherealness of intent towards actions. You may still stand by your guns, but many other people may not be so strictly defined by this standard of "good" and "evil." Regardless of intent, different people may attribute their own different standards on to others. Many would even attribute others' intent in order to justify a similar standard of good and evil ("You must have WANTED to kill someone if you decided to drive drunk!!!") You could be piling up a mountain of good intentions, but if you take no action towards any good end (or even still be acting towards harmful ends) then what is the point? And even if you have "good" intentions and provide "good" actions, there may still be an army of people who say you are "evil".

But maybe you could take intent or action out of the equation and rationalize both of the scenarios by considering them acts of God or, to put it another way, as neutral acts to which you just happened to receive blessings or the raw-end-of-the-stick. Treat the actions as one would treat a tornado or winning the lottery. ("I am happy that my baby is free, the murder just did not concern me. It was something that just would have happened anyway, and my child and I just happened to received the benefits"). Well, that is how I truly feel. All actions are indeed neutral in this way. Billions of people perform trillions of actions every day; most do not even know you and do not intend to affect your life in anyway. However, the culmination of these unintentional actions result in your perceived downfall or rise. You have no money? Well, a bunch of stockbrokers a million miles away screwed up the economy. A bully bothering you? Well, a life time of pain and neglect fashioned him to know no other way of expressing himself. You suddenly find the love of your life? Well, a billion sets of circumstances put one compatible person in a collision course with you because of your billion set of circumstances, so that you two could meet at all.

Where is intent in any of this? How can a person be blamed or praised for being lucky or unlucky?

The liberation I get from absurdism is that I may someday learn to alter my perceptions so that I could see through "evil" and therefore not feel slighted against it.

Fair enough. wink

Could you suggest a source to read about it? I searched but I can't find exactly the right thing, and I'm not even sure if I know what I'm supposed to be looking for.

This is very coincidental. I just read a novel by Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead, and her commentary in the front of the book mentioned Nietzsche and Rand said that she finds him to be completely irrational, among other things. Ayn Rand is an atheist.