The Pivotal Virtue Of Selfishness

[morosophos 0]

Morality is a superficial device uesd in attempts to regulate the actions of subscribers. Humanity is essentially selfish from the moment of conception, which percludes the notions of good and evil as absolutes. Good and evil are terms trying to describe the outcomes of human action, which is essentially neither good nor evil. It is the assumption of many that humans are not born essentially good, as the many brands of religion would have one believe. Some ideologies propose the idea of a human tendency to "sin," which is the unfortunate and unnatural result of an event exclusive of humanity as it is supposed to be. Original sin in many kinds of Christianity proposes such. Isn?t that idea paradoxical, that mankind is good yet possesses the tendency to do evil? The solution to this dilemma lies within good and evil themselves: good and evil do not exist, at least not in the forms by which they infest even modern thinking. Humans are inherently selfish, which can be seen readily in infancy. Toddlers and little children grab at things out of curiosity, learning about the world in general and their own responses to the world. As a child finally recognises its own existence, it can begin to associate various attributes to itself, namely dominion. The children get extremely territorial, but parents don?t worry about their children because they know they?ll grow out of it.?Wrong. People don?t grow out of, they grow on top of. Selfishness gets masked and obscured by other things such as superficial morals, which nine times out of ten a given person may follow, but at other times, the basic instinct for self-service takes over, creating ?sin.? The hidden selfishness is like the trunk of a tree. When the tree just sprouts, you can see the stem very easily because there?s nothing blocking your view. Allowing thirty or so years to elapse, the tree has fully grown and has shot-off branches and leaves, perhaps so many that the trunk is completely covered from sight by the leaves. Just because one can?t see the trunk any longer doesn?t mean the trunk is gone, that would be silly. The trunk is still there, just obscured, like the human selfishness.Humans being self-serving, however, does not exclude the possibility of cooperation among themselves. This sort of cooperation is percieved as charity, which pertains to goodwill for another. Goodwill, however, is not able to stand on its own, since the human psyche never fully wills good insofar as it never fully wills evil. Rather, charity is the result of outside circumstances, the numbers of which are multitudinous. The most common form of charity is, in fact, enlightened self-interest, which is the realisation that by giving assistance to others, the one benefits oneself. This realisation does not even need to be conscious; it occupies mostly the subconscious. Enlightened self-interest in turn can be divided into many different reasons and causes. For example, the concern of self-image can be of great importance when making a decision: by making the so-called correct choice, society takes a more positive view of the individual, bolstering the self-image and thereby chances of being treated to one's greater convenience and whim. Conformity to society is often overlooked as a form of self-interest; cooperation benefits the masses, including the self. The laws set forth in many states are set so that order can be kept and the people ruled can enjoy a better quality of life. If the people were to impose regular infractions on the rules, order would be lost and the quality of life would plummet. In this case, the choice for the common good is also the selfish choice.

[me_boxer_dude 0]

Selfishness has been implanted deep within our subconscious minds as an essential tool for survival, In nutshell selfishness could be acceptable up to some extent however beyond a certain limit it starts affecting people around you in a negative way.

[morosophos 0]

The fact that selfishness pervades the subconscious makes it inseparable from behavior; in order to control behavior, one has to make conscious effort for change, and obviously no one can affect their unconscious selves consciously. Selfishness is an integral part of human nature and cannot be removed thence, since it is instinct. When selfishness as you say, affects other people in a negative way, self-interest has become unbridled from the depths of the mind and runs rampant in the conscious decision-making processes. However, society implants systems of mediation into the mind, e.g. morals, in such a way that complete egoism is rarely seen on the outside. In addition, egoism simply pertains to self-satisfaction, which is exclusively betterment of the self rather than the maltreatment of everyone else. When self-interest intersects with common good, then everyone benefits, so selfishness can affect others both positively and negatively, according to whatever consequences result from the mind's choosing for its own advantage.

[osknockout 0]

Nice argument. Sounds like standard neo-modern fatalistic theory to me

 

Let's go over a few things.

First your beginning argument. Allow me to restructure it a little and use some philosophical analysis.

 

Premise 1:

Humanity is essentially selfish from the moment of conception, which percludes the notions of good and evil as absolutes.

Premise 2:

Good and evil are terms trying to describe the outcomes of human action, which is essentially neither good nor evil.

Premise 3a:

It is the assumption of many that humans are not born essentially good, as the many brands of religion would have one believe.

Premise 3b:

Some ideologies propose the idea of a human tendency to "sin," which is the unfortunate and unnatural result of an event exclusive of humanity as it is supposed to be.

Premise 4:

Isn?t that idea paradoxical, that mankind is good

Ok, honestly, I don't know where you got that idea from. You didn't state its source and it contradicts a few things, but I'll get to it later.

 

Conclusion:

yet possesses the tendency to do evil? The solution to this dilemma lies within good and evil themselves: good and evil do not exist, at least not in the forms by which they infest even modern thinking.

Ok, so pretty much this is what I've got from that:

Humans are selfish and good and evil are absolute. Also, human actions are neither good nor evil. Many people believe that humans are not born good, and some ideologies state the human tendency to sin. Mankind is good however. Mankind being good and being able to sin are contradictory, therefore evil and good do not exist.

 

Several things to say about your argument. It's well put first of all, it took me a while to see that it's not a logically valid argument. You have a false cause argument here. You're saying that if object x = a, but it can equal b, a and b cannot exist.

 

That's like saying that you have a coin that's showing heads but it can be flipped to show tails.

Therefore there must be no heads or tails. Wrong.

 

Aside that logical technicality, I have a question about Premise 4, specifically that part I bolded manually.

If mankind is good, then what is its goodness measured by? You said that human actions are neither good or evil, therefore you're certainly not saying that humanity's goodness is measured by its actions.

So what is it measured by then? Its thoughts? Its feelings? Its desires? Or another trivial term?

--Sorry to sound as if I'm lambasting you with that remark, but there is no actual pragmatic way to measure "goodness" outside of human action, unless you have a method of assessment I haven't heard of.

 

And of course, if you don't believe that ideas don't exist, good and evil don't exist. They're abstractions.

[Cerebral Stasis 0]

Glad to see there are people arguing with logic.The way I see it, "evil" is really just human instinct. Stealing - at one point, it would allow people to take food from others in order to support their own family during short supplies. Promiscuity - increases one's chances to produce offspring, thus keeping one's own family line going; one of the most primordial instincts. Murder - killing those of one's own species in order to promote the survival of one's own family, or one's own self, whether it be for protection or to be used offensively. The list goes on.Good, on the other hand, is an abstract creation of the human mind, an attempt to battle instinct with reason. Through this abstract concept, people consider how others around them feel about their actions, something that is not natural to any instinct-driven creature, unless it serves the needs of said creature (for example, sharing food with it's family in order to keep it's offspring alive and thus continue on it's spread of genes).Civilization is just a fight between what's natural and what's unnatural, what's natural being what's "evil", and what's unnatural being what's "good." They are real concepts, just not in the sense that a religious person would have one believe, and yes, if one considers instinct evil and reason good, then humans are instinctively evil, but yet so are all other creatures. They must be taught, through psychological reinforcement, that being good has it's rewards, else they remain instinct-driven creatures.The conscious, which religious people will have you believe is God whispering in your ear, is merely instinct. I know that at one point, simple and silly things that now mean nothing were taught to me to be "evil" and "wrong", such as calling something stupid. Growing up, whenever I would go against that deeply-driven instinct, I would feel guilty, and my parents would tell me that it was because I went against the whispers of God. In reality, however (and I'm not expert, this is merely my own theorizations), it was merely instinct telling me to do something a certain way, or in this case, not to do something, and then guilt, or at least what I thought it to be, was merely an internal fear of my breaking of instinct possibly causing harm to myself.Guilt and embarrassment, in my opinion, are instinctive fears of certain outcomes based on our actions, whether they be breaking instinct, or merely something that we realize was foolish. The fears may not necessarily be of a deadly nature, but they are still a type of fear, nonetheless, thus is why we wish to run from and avoid them.So to sum up my ramblings, I believe that evil and good are real concepts, just not in the sense that religious folk imagine them to be. Evil is instinct, good is reason, and guilt is merely the feeling of fear when one goes against one's instinct, whether that instinct is selfish or not (thus how some could badly hurt someone and feel bad, while others could do the same and not give it a second thought). Instinct (good and evil) really are relative concepts, but it is what they are in relation to the majority of the human population that should be enforced as law (for example, that murder, or killing in general, at least of humans, is wrong), else we fall into a fully instinct-driven society (also known as anarchy).

[osknockout 0]

Hey Cerebral Stasis, nice pragmatism.
Although I still don't think pulling my hand away from the fire when I feel hot is evil.
I would argue over the nature vs. nurture part of humanity out of my own bias honestly.
Your points make sense, but they do not explain certain behaviors in the modern world, e.g.
one man murdering dozens of people he doesn't know without reason. I understand you could
argue that he is being instinctually aggressive and displacing this aggression, but this sort of
displacement is unnatural in the sense that it only results in decline of the species, so I wouldn't
really call that instinct. Your definition's the best model we've got so far but I don't think you could
explain behaviors like these with it.

else we fall into a fully instinct-driven society (also known as anarchy).

Anarchy? Seems more like despotism to me... If you care to look at history, most primitive groups of mankindwere small groups under a leader of some sort, and most social animals have a hierarchy system.
Aside from that, I'd say your ramblings make sense.

[Cerebral Stasis 0]

Depends - civilization is not natural, but small family groups are (animals do it; i.e. herds, packs, flocks, etc.), so the line between civilization and natural grouping is a little thin, although I think that one would realize that civilization was nigh once the line was crossed.As for there being things not explained by instinct, such as mass-murders, it is a combination of reason and instinct. The reason supports the instinct in such a case by making it seem as though killing those people furthers the cause of the murderer (whether it does or not), which fulfills the natural selfishness and thus appeals overall, even though it may not really do so. There are gray areas where both, or neither, apply, but for the most part, human behavior can be categorized as one of those two.For example, one could reach out and slap one's closest relative. They are instinctual driven not to, for procreative and protective reasons, if not just to keep oneself safe from harm, but one can override that, as can trained animals. It's difficult, and unless it has some kind of foreseeable purpose, we usually won't do it, unless driven by instinct of another kind (i.e. if one is on drugs, the sense of purpose for self may seem heightened despite it not being so in reality). Anyway, it would be hard for one to do it, but one could, if they were strong-willed enough to put aside both instinct and reason. Then what is man? One has the ability to determine one's actions aside from instinct and reason, but few people take advantage of such, and those that do usually see, or imagine to see, some purpose or end to it all, but for those who don't see any purpose, they are acting like machines - driven by no guidelines, just performing actions based on commands. That can be most dangerous of all.And no, just because what we consider to be "evil" is instinct doesn't mean that all instinct is evil. If it was, we couldn't do anything to keep ourselves alive. Those instinctual traits that cause harm to those around us are generally labeled as evil, while those that don't are just considered natural (until the tolerance line is crossed, a line which is often set by religion and current moral standards, which, I may add, are simply conflicts of reason versus instinct). For example, homosexuality. Some people have a problem with it, even though it does not concern them. They are trying to act on reason but are unknowingly acting on instinct, trying to destroy or change those who are different from themselves, thus keeping themselves from becoming obsolete (even though that wouldn't be the true result), or even to keep the local gene pool pure (and with worldwide news, the gene pool, at least as we perceive it, is constantly expanding).Even emotions themselves are merely instinct. Instinct can save one at times, but when given too much power, it can destroy not only oneself, but those around as well.

Edited November 9, 2006 by Cerebral Stasis (see edit history)

[morosophos 0]

I am flattered that you have taken the time to attempt an analysis of my argument; however, you have distorted with semantics my premises, hence there is an apparent error in logic. Most of this comes from your idea that I have said "Since humans possess the ability to do wrong, therefore to say that they are good is incorrect." Instead, I look at the ideology "Sin is the human tendency to do wrong; humans have such a tendency," where humans cannot be essentially good since this premise clearly states that makind is wont to do evil. I myself am not of this opinion, since makind is inclined to neither good nor evil in themselves.

 

In your logical statements relating to x, a, and b, a and b are not adequate terms to describe x. If we were to assign a to a static positive number, representing absolute good, and b to a static negative number, representing absolute evil (they can be assigned to constants since both good and evil in my statements are absolutes), what happens when x is equal to a number between them? Then neither of the terms can describe x; we can only say that one term is "closer" to x than the other. This situation of "closeness" is relatable to motive, where intrinsically an act can be described as either good or evil but the intentions may be the opposite. Therefore, to get the most accurate evaluation of a deed, the intentions have to be considered.

 

Humans are animals, beasts, parts of nature; from a struggling chaos where only the strong survive has mankind arisen---if such a word must be used. For mankind's own benefit, it has been equipped with survival instinct which is inherent and inseperable from human psyche, whereas the survival instinct is concerned with survival of the self.

 

Bringing back the idea that acts must be judged upon intention, we see that all acts are essentially the same in that respect, since all deeds are performed ultimately for oneself. You ask on what basis goodness is evaluated, but you must see that goodness can be evaluated no more than a child's belief in the boogeyman. The best one can do is evaluate deeds based on effect and implications. For example, burglary is inconvenient, because the resources of the victim have been taken away, and the victim is at a loss. The deed has been judged according to the plight of the victim. In an attempt to evaluate it according to the burglar, all we can say is "He plundered the house for his own benefit," which is really no different than saying "I donated money to UNICEF, releiving my guilt of personal global responsibility for my own benefit." The only difference between these two events is that the former is inconvenient, but the latter is philanthropic; neither are good or evil.

[osknockout 0]

I see. So indeed I have made a semantic error. Although I'd say the wording was a bit ambiguous. I still see the need for the question however if a tendency to do something negates an initial opposing state. You state - and for this argument, I assume - the premise that many religions assume that humans have a tendency to do evil. We have three possible starting positions however when taken from an absolute context where neutrality is allowed:Evil - humanity is evil to begin with and has a tendency to do evilNeutral - humanity starts neutral in respect to good and evil but has a tendency to do evilGood - humanity starts good but has a tendency to do evilNow these are all positions of perception. Whether they're actually true or not in any standard doesn't matter, this is a purely pragmatist approach.Correct me if I'm wrong here. Most of the religions that state humanity's tendency toward evil assume that people want to do good. Somewhat reminiscent of the whole "I believe that people are good at heart" argument. From this perception, the corresponding starting position relative to the three positions I indicated above would be that of 'good'. This would be the equivalent of stating that 'people want to do good, but will eventually sin', which is the same thing as stating 'good'=starting position, as time increases, the chance of having sinned increases. To go back to my coin analogy, it's like flipping coins and repeatedly getting heads. As the number of flips increases, the chance of getting tails (in cumulative context) also increases.If this happens to be the case, then there's no dilemma involved. It's just a case of theological statistics. Otherwise, I'd say that your argument is valid and plausible morosophos. -without accounting for any other semantic ambiguities I have misapprehended - although I think that most of these religions do not assume a starting tabula rasa or evil intent towards morality.

[Cerebral Stasis 0]

So, what it comes down to is that, if there is a God, morals are to be based upon ancient texts. If not, they are a completely uncertain and debatable subject.

[jhsmurray 0]

Is it fair to say that a summary of the argument in the first post could be as follows?

 

"There is no such thing as altruism, and morality is a way by which our inherently human selfish natures are disguised."

 

If that's the case, then I'll respond on that basis. I use the word altruism to boil it down a bit. I think that true altruism is a very rare thing indeed. I'm not religous, but I think Jesus existed (as a man), and I suspect he was altruistic, as well as a few others. I dont think Gandhi was, exceptional as he was, he was mainly acting in the interest of his people (not that theres anything wrong with that).

 

But I also see nothing wrong in acting selfishly, if you put it in those terms. I didnt wake up in the morning to serve others, however I try to treat others with the respect they deserve. And that's selfish because if I wrong people throughout the day, sooner or later I know I'll get whats coming to me.

[edit]

I forgot to mention that there have been some things I have done, but have regretted. This feeling of regret was not based on consequences against myself. I'm not sure how to explain these feelings. I dont think they are imposed upon me per se. I guess those who dont have any feelings of regret under any circumstances may be considered sociopathic.

And then there is the issue of sympathy. If I see someone in trouble I feel bad for them. What are the underlying reasons? I cant say for sure, but if I see that person in that bad situation even though that person should have known better, I dont feel quite so bad about it, although I'd still help him if he truly needed it. (These are just side notes that do not directly relate to altruism or this moral discussion, but I felt they were important to say anyways)

 

Anyways, you might enjoy reading Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene, it's a similar argument from a biological perspective. Very controversial

Edited November 13, 2006 by jhsmurray (see edit history)

[Cerebral Stasis 0]

I'd say that guilt and pity are still instinctual concepts, made so by the teaching of our parents. If a child is not taught to be compassionate and kind as a child, said child will not be, while those who have been taught as such will be kind and compassionate (at least until someone else overwrites that instict, be it themselves or others, with psychological training, be they intending to do so or realizing it as such or not). So, in a sense, those who are not taught to have a conscience do not have one. Doesn't that conflict with the concept of conscience being God whispering to us? If that were the case, we would all feel guilt, not matter what our upbringings contained, but we do not, even though it is very easy (since it is so heavily pushed by society around us, just like other things, such as a love of candy, sexual attraction to breasts, etc. - they may have an underlying instinctual driving force as well, but the majority of it is society and peer-based).

[jhsmurray 0]

Hmm. I would tend to think that there is about 50/50 percent nature versus nurture which influences human behavior (where divine aspects are nurture sided, me being an athiest and all ) Call me a romantic, but I think that although a child will adopt behavioral cues from its environment, that child will still likely have developed feelings of compassion. It might explain the problem of domestic abuse. The is both love and violence in the home. If you've ever interacted with a baby, there are visible cues of [edit]compassion[/edit]. But I agree with you that outside influence is an important factor. Erm, this may be a myth, but I've heard somewhere that one of the reasons a baby cries in the maternity ward is because it hears other babies crying - which implies a hardcoded sense of sympathy.

 

I like the reference to these things being an adaptive strategy. I'm trying to remember if Carl Sagan's book "The Dragons of Eden" might apply, but I cant - too many brain cells fried But I know that the Book The Moral Animal is a good one on the topic of Evolutionary Psychology (again, another contraversial piece of work )

 

 

To avoid treading too far off topic, I think that either way, the main idea is that the person is "selfish" (either consciously or unconsciously, and not in the pejorative sense).

Edited November 14, 2006 by jhsmurray (see edit history)

[Cerebral Stasis 0]

I'd just like to point out that a human baby has to be cute and cuddly (read: seemingly compassionate), because it has no way to defend itself should it be ferocious. Ditto most humans in the youngest stages of life, although as they grow older and become stronger/more able to defend themselves if they were in the wild (probably not those who didn't grow up there, but nonetheless), they are more apt to fall upon a lack of compassion than an embrasing of it (or so is my opinion).

[osknockout 0]

Hmm... interesting points.

I'd say that guilt and pity are still instinctual concepts, made so by the teaching of our parents.

When you say instinctual concept do you mean some sort of idea that has been preconditioned in the mind and is just activated by the teaching of our parents, or are you saying that the communication of the ideas of guilt and pity are simply passed on to the child? It's a somewhat strange idea to say that we have something preconditioned in us outside immediate scope of a possible explanation through some sort of evolution.

...they are more apt to fall upon a lack of compassion than an embrasing of it (or so is my opinion).

I wonder if that case is applicable. You're isolating a social animal to a somewhat contained environment. He has to make rules for himself. As a social animal, he learns to observe the nature of other such creatures and emulate them. So if we have some Tarzan in the wild, he will fight for every little scrap he can get and be compassionate with that he calls his own because that's how he sees everything else react in such cases. You could say that it's just a simplified case of a human society, but compassion can be seen constantly in such societies and would therefore be emulated. If we're going to try and simplify man's nature in order to determine our model of how he determines things, e.g. selfishness or otherwise, we have to take into account his premises of natural existence, notably that fellow-society which we role model from.
Oh, and I don't know about the 50 nature / 50 nurture thing, but I'm with jhsmurray on this one.