I wind up empathizing with both characters.
You're supposed to, or at least I did. Both are right.
What is the converse of a dialogue?
The converse of a logical statement is another statement with the antecedent and consequent swapped. I was using it metaphorically for "another similar take on the same subject". Both these quotes emphasize that there is no morality inherent in the universe. If we want a moral universe, we have to build it ourselves.
The Cassini Division quote actually to me seems rather cheerful. Even from cynicism that deep we can build a good life full of all the things we cherish.
I think part of what bothers me about your Cassini quote is that the claims in the first paragraph are overstated, especially coming from a character who is (presumably) a metaethical nihilist/egoist.
I think that's because they're not coming from a unitary viewpoint. They're bridging between something approximating normal morality, and utter amorality.
life is the scum of matter, and people are the scum of life.
Why, is it so wrong to eat things?
The point is not "it's wrong to eat things". The point is that life is what's survived, and it does anything it can to survive. People much the same, though they're better at it.
If I firmly estimate that other minds exist, does the existence of those minds depend upon my estimation?
Of course not.
If other minds exist, why should what matters to them be irrelevant?
First ask why should what matters to them be relevant?
Well, because:
But neither of these is fundamental.
What does it even mean to say that "might makes right" except that I plan to ignore the concept of "right"?
It means that the concept of right is not fundamental, is not baked into the fabric of the universe. Right only means something relative to the minds that hold it. And they can only enforce that with might. Try reading it as "might effects right".
When, in the course of human events, has the power to ignore morality left people truly free?
Well, the simplest answer is when people have the power to ignore morality forced upon them by others that they don't agree with. If a gay man is free to ignore the moral judgements of an Imam in a Sharia country, he is freer to have sex with whom he pleases, how he pleases. A slave that has the power to escape is freer. A person is freer when they can do something that pleases them rather than the high-paying stressful job that their parents tell them is what they should do.
if you want to survive and thrive you had better do whatever is in your interests.
Really? All the time?
All the time.
can spend some of the resulting surplus on frivolous pursuits;
The "frivolous pursuits" are both the thriving and what is in your interests. You interests include both accumulating the surplus and spending it on what matters to you.
The times where it is survival on the line, rather than thriving, can be much rarer.
All right, all of that is interesting. I would use some of the words you use differently, but none of your definitions are unreasonable, and now that I understand what you're really saying, I agree with most of it.
I still disagree that the interests of others are non-fundamental; there are causes I would die for, which your philosophy seems to forbid. Perhaps I still don't understand your stance on that point.
Also, this may be nitpicky, but at this point in history, life is not "what survived." The ocean, the moon, the molten core of the Earth...
This is our monthly thread for collecting these little gems and pearls of wisdom, rationality-related quotes you've seen recently, or had stored in your quotesfile for ages, and which might be handy to link to in one of our discussions.