/(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) >You can derive the immorality of hurting someone else entirely from selfish >motives.  I can say, for example, that it is wrong to hurt other people >because that makes them less productive members of society.  /(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?