/(hudson)
/Yes you do.  Who is to say that it is immoral for onesself to experience
/pain or to be hurt in some other way.  Maybe unpleasant, but that doesn't
/say anything about morality.

It violates free will, Hudson.



(me)

/(hudson)
/Why is making someone a less productive member of society immoral?

Hudson, you are screwing up again.  Morality does not (I say again, DOES
NOT) define only "right and wrong".  It also defines "acceptable social
behavior", without any overtones of good and evil.  Picking up your trash
is not really a right/wrong moral issue in the eternal sense of Good
and Evil.  Yet it is moral in the sense that it is acceptable social
behavior".  

Your definition of the word "morality" is what is causing you to trip over 
yourself here.




/(me)
/And since
/>I, selfish being that I am, want to maximize my gains from society, I will
/>not do anything to another member of society if that action might cut down
/>on how much benefit I can derive from society.

/(hudson)
/Why is your benefit somehow related to morality.

Again, your definition is causing you to shoot yourself in the foot.





/(hudson)
/What about if someone feels that their own personal benefit is enhanced
/more than it would be damaged by depleting the overall resources of society?
/Maybe something might hurt society, but it would help him immensly?

That is irrational thinking.  

There may also be people out there who think that death by atomic 
destruction is  a sublime and wonderful thing. I am not going to let them
execute that idea just because they want to do it. 

Simply because I let people make up their minds about what morals they
have doesn't prevent me from spotting and stopping a madman when I see
one, Hudson.  And even then, I will only stop him when he interferes 
with me and my life.  That is the difference between me and you:  you
want to interfere in people's lives even when they aren't affecting
you.  





/(hudson)
/The central character in Dostoevsky's novel, Crime and Punishment, 
/(R something or other) reasoned that if killed this old Jewish woman and
/stole her money to educate and establish himself financially, he could
/make a great contribution to society.  He reasoned that she was not of 
/much profit to society.  She just collected rents, and hoarded money.


One of the central points of any (that's ANY) moral system is that is
has to be internally consistent.  

By killing her, the character had to accept the premise that the ends
justify the means.  If he accepted that premise, then (in order to be
consistent), he must accept the idea that some day another person may
apply the same standard to HIS life.  Now, if he is unwilling to accept
this premise (which he will not be willing to accept), then he has
behaved inconsistently with his own moral standard.





/(me)
/[football example deleted]

/(hudson)
/Now suppose a freshman on the bench will only get to play if one of the
/players in the field/on the court is injured (or killed.)  This freshman
/wants to play in the big game so a talent scout can see him.  If he hurts
/a player on the team, it might slightly lessen the chances of the team to
/win, but he might gain great personal benefit.  So, operating on purely
/selfish (immorally selfish) motives, he arranges for a sniper to shoot a
/team player in the leg.  He gets to play in front of the talent scout.

/Did that freshman behave morally?

/Selfish intentions may sometimes generate (apparently) moral actions, but
/not always.



Two problems right off the bat:

1.  The problem with your analogy is that it doesn't address the goal
that I started with:  winning the game.  Playing in front of the talent
scout != winning the game.  Try creating the same analogy and keep the
ultimate goal the same, will you?