I don't know. Most likely understanding what is worth maximizing and what is not? Looks to me for you it's maximizing satisfaction and try not to analyze why, so you don't get to be proven wrong. (Oh yea I know, there is no wright or wrong for you) But something must be more +ev then other for you?

Pretty hard to find out what's worth maximizing if you don't know what the goal is.

Of course some things are more +ev for me. Sushine fir the cricket tomorrow is (not in my control). Having sky sports to watch it is (in my control)

While you guys are at it, could you tell me what's the meaning of life?

Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations, and, finally, here are some completely gratuitous pictures of penises to annoy the censors and to hopefully spark some sort of controversy

From a moral standpoint, ivey should make far less than a teacher. But that is not how it works. It is impossible to base everyones income purely on morality and that is assuming we could make an objective system to pinpoint exactly how much everybody should make depending on their positive contribution to society (as hoopman thoroughly pointed that out). Well, it is possible, but it requires a huge government that redistributed income on such an extreme level that would be devestating for the economy.

In other words, it is impossible and disastrous for a society to be based merely on moral principles.

The meaning of life doesn't exist. Meaning is a subjective term, meaning is something people can give to certain actions/phenomena, but it would merely be an opinion. There is no such thing as objective meaning; you cannot test the meaning of life in a scientific way or demonstrate it in any possible way. This is hard for humans to accept, especially if you come from a religious background where an objective meaning of life is jammed into your frame of reference.

Just make your own subjective meaning of life, try to determine what kind of goals and achievements you think you should try to persue in your life and try to set goals that are possible to reach and accept the possibility of failure, it's the best you can make of it.

It is intellectually dishonest and lame to use a religion or any other ideology for that matter to give yourself a quasi-objective meaning of life, it is a form of self-delusion.

+1

Also self is an ideology therefore an illusion (as well as time).

To replicate itself and explore complexity as much as possible...

I was just making joke at the direction Chezlaw and Riker's argument was headed. Maybe nobody got it. Perhaps it was lame.

Of course i got it, thats why i responded with 1 liner. How often do you see that from me? The response was adding to the joke. For clearly trying to answer a core philosophical question with 1 line is intriguing.

Good stuff. I liked Chez's Monte Python reference too.

yes, this is all I can think of.... (2m22s+ is the interesting part)

itt chezlaw absolutely pwns rikers, rikers continues to deny he's saying dumb things

It's Dunkin' Donuts, which is colloquial for "dunking donuts", which is evocative of the common practice of dunking one's donuts into a hot beverage such as coffee.

Although correct, I am nearly certain that you ducked the question.