Moral Value of a Person

gavinok · 2015-03-23T03:13:44+00:00

The main point at the core of TRP, beneath anything about women, sex etc. is that from a basic stand point, people do not care about you because you merely exist. You have to have some quality, feature or talent they enjoy and are attracted to, or in some way improve other people's lives for them to care about you. The more valuable your traits/features are to other people, the more social status and value you will have.

The idea of moral value is a little strange to me, as I never heard that term as applied to people. Mind elaborating on what you mean by that?

refutesstupidnotions · 2015-03-23T04:02:41+00:00

whereas I get the impression that non-RPers are more likely to value people just for being people

No one values anybody for just being a person. Your biggest blue pill whiteknight mangina will jump and trample hundreds of others to elevate himself in the eyes of one person or group. And that's one reason they're hated.

I just read yesterday about a person getting kicked out of their house at 18, and the top comment (thousand votes or something) straight out said that nobody cares about your sob story or you. Keep a positive attitude and all that to sell yourself.

And that's basically it. Especially women ignore more people than most men do and would devalue them faster.

LUClEN · 2015-03-23T07:28:37+00:00

I don't see much difference between those things. Both sound very utilitarian: it is only those that the person derives some kind of pleasure from that earn their respect/friendship.

In the case of RPers you simply paint it as more material. But both seem to be averse to those who do not fit the bill of a certain kind of person. The key difference simply being what it is that they value.

Both are conditional.

exit_sandman · 2015-03-23T11:12:45+00:00

Well, all relationships are in a way transactional, RP is only a lot less apologetic about saying so - it's always about what other people bring to a relationship that makes people stick to them, whether it's a material benefit or how ones makes people feel.

Even BPers know this, they just refuse to explicitly acknowledge it. But there are enough posts at /r/relationships (for example) where people give an account on relationships that started out great but turned sour and toxic over the years, and the common response to that is "(s)he's taking advantage of you / making your life worse, (s)he's not your friend"

Because that's what "not-friends" do - they turn your relationship into a one-sided arrangement where they either derive benefits from it (material, emotional, support...) while they leave you hanging when you need it; or they make your life actually worse because they take advantage of you, destroy your relationships, take away value from your life (f.ex. by extracting resources from you by guilt-tripping you) and so on.

Friends on the other make sure that both sides get treated fairly in that situation. Now you may say "but that's not transactional!" - well, yes it is. Because even though the transaction may not be immediate or perfectly symmetrical, it is conditional insofar as mutuality is supposed to take place at some point. The difference between a real and a fair weather friend is that the latter is a lot more willing to cut you out as soon as you stop adding value to their lives when you go through a tough patch - but the former will do the same if that becomes a permanent arrangement (if only out of self-preservation).

The disconnect is from the language used which as a consequence leads to misinterpretations of human behavior.

While BPers think that you have unconditional value as a person, RPers think that one's value is the accumulation of one's traits. The problem with the BP interpretation is that it comes crashing down once you take a totally despicable person who adds nothing to anyone's life; then suddenly when push comes to pull even bluepillers are totally in favor of cutting that person out (and thus effectively denying that (s)he has value).

Or that BPers think that it's your treatment of people that matters, RPers think that it's how you make people actually feel that matters. You can be as nice and helpful as you want, but you'll always be considered a second-rate friend or an orbiter at best if you're not very interesting to have around; while actually being emotionally engaging for others is what makes you a bro (for guys) or desirable (for women) - even when you're a selfish asshole.

Technically, from a Nitzschean perspective: BP pits good (as in: morally good) vs. evil, while RP pits good (as in: working/useful) vs. bad.

kittukatsu · 2015-03-24T22:27:41+00:00

Yes, there is moral value in personhood, in my opinion. But, easy person holds different amount of value to different people.

Let's say... people are worth $100 dollars simply because they're a living person. That's everyone's base value. That base value is basically the reason we don't kill homeless, unemployed drug addicts, because they hold small moral value simply because they're people. However, to me, my mom is worth 1,000,000 because she raised me, and helps me a lot with whatever problems I have. That doesn't change the fact that to some random person in NY she's only worth 100.

So, each person has a base value to me, but that value is increased by what they add to my life. And I believe that my value is assessed similarly by others, ex: to a complete stranger I'm basically valueless but if I cross the road and didn't see their car coming they'd still hit their brakes and/or swerve to try not to hit me.

emptypillbox · 2015-03-23T03:19:33+00:00

People who aren't mine have no intrinsic value to me outside of utility.

RELTIH88 · 2015-03-23T04:43:38+00:00

I get the impression that RPers are more likely to value people for their interpersonal utility (how are they useful to me?) and economic value (what to they provide/produce/offer)

You are literally describing women, not the red pill. This is the basis for a woman's attraction to a man.

thereddespair · 2015-03-23T19:31:49+00:00

Id rather put more stock on a persons sense of reason than sense of morality.

I value people by what they can offer me, what they want in return for it, risk %, terms. Risk being the total % of the agreement not pulling though. And really, I expect the same from others. People say the most ridiculous of things, but their actions will always speak louder than words.

Value people for being people, what the hell does that even mean? So you're all equal then, and I am to just go with the first person that comes my way as youre all the same? Or I should value someone more because this person is nice to 'other' people, even if this person cannot give me what I want and need?

Title	Moral Value of a Person
Author	emptypillbox
Upvotes	10
Comments	83
Date	March 23, 2015 2:55 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2zz15j/moral_value_of_a_person/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/moral-value-of-a-person.283032 https://theredarchive.com/post/283032

Comments