The Pivotal Virtue Of Selfishness

[Cerebral Stasis 0]

I meant that pity may be something that takes parental conditioning to appreciate. Babies, be they human or not, are fluffy and "cute" for a reason - it is intended to create a feeling of love or pity, but animals do not teach interspecies pity, and as such they usually do not appreciate the cuteness of a rival creature's offspring (only their own). As creatures who are not drawn primarily by instinct, humans have the ability to learn to appreciate all aspects of "cute", or none at all, depending on how they are brought up. Therefore, I see pity and compassion as being traits that must be taught and therefore are non-instinctual until they are enforced by a parent (at which point, they become part of one's conscience, or one's "inner instinct", making it a part of instinct, albeit not one that is passed genetically).

[osknockout 0]

I have a slight disagreement with one of your premises, but I'll get back to that later.Suppose that indeed pity was taught or conditioned from parent to sibling. Because we are assuming - if my interpretation of the implications of your statements is correct - that animals do indeed have some sense of pity for their own species - which seems to follow from the corollary that animals do not feel interspecies pity, the logical derivation is that your premise is that they do indeed then have intraspecies 'pity' or some equivalent emotion. Then it is fair to say that there is some relative form of 'pity' existent in humans as well, assuming again here the premise that humanity is affected by the same forces as other creatures in this context. So your assertion would then amount to the statement that pity is inherent in the human, but must be developed by parental conditioning. I beg the question how human pity originated in the first place with this idea. I think it is only fair to say that it cannot be truly controlled - and I mean control in the manner that some sort of 'activation' is required to relegate pity in the child - by parental conditioning, to say that suppose that you or I grew up without parental sympathy taught to us that we could develop it by ourselves because it seems to be one of the more fundamental aspects of humanity - that is, the ability to forge idea and emotion in relation to its environment.Now for that premise I contest. Going by the sole principles of 'survival of the fittest', it would seem that the offspring that are most likely to survive will indeed be those that are best able to arouse sympathy from its neighbors. This is no calculation, this is random chance, trial and error of natural selection. Sure the end result may appear to be the same, but to assert reason to an unreasoning process seems illogical.Either that or I'm reading wrong from lack of sleep.

[morosophos 0]

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

 

This is an oversimplification of the issue at hand, for two reasons: (1) not only does altruism not exist in its own right, but also wickedness is not part of reality; and (2) morality is not so much a "way" or tool so much as it is a complex. That humanity is neither good nor evil by nature does not state implicitly or explicitly that humanity does not benefit itself by being generous. Altruism, although impossible to attain in purest form, is still not the most ignoble amongst impossible goals. Even pseudo-charity works for the advantage of everyone; feeding starving children in Africa preserves the human species; the processors, marketers, farmers, harvesters, machiney used thereby, and all other parties who had a hand in the product of that food benefit; the giver obviously satiates some psychological want.

 

To say that morality "is a way by which our ... selfish natures are disguised" means that morality has the purpose of obfuscating the human motive. If morality evolved for any reason in particular, it is that morality encourages humans to act in a more philanthropic self-interest than they would without morality. Moral human beings have distinct advantages over the immoral. For instance, if there were a secluded group of early h o m o sapiens that lived in a harsh environment, with sharp blustery winters and frequented by violent hail storms, its foremost need would be shelter. They may live in a wooded area, but the trees that grow are very firm, to such an extent that it takes several strong men to pull one down, and even more to split it into the planks to build proper shelter between the intermittent summer storms or the hasty arrival of winter. If the members within the group have a helpful instinct, then shelter they will have, else out of their own self-righteousness they will perish, not living to bear children to carry on their genes. In this way, humanity's deep capacity (though not deep possession of, since this has many other variables) for morality is possibly genetic.