The Reunion Of Altruism And Selfishness On Selfish Morality​

[Exegesisme]

The Reunion Of Altruism And Selfishness On Selfish Morality​

By Exegesisme

I once had lived in Chinese communism regime for decades. I suffered deeply from many good names, but actually they were only all sorts of disguises of evil. As I went deep in Chinese history, I realized the core there is that evil of fa-school disguised with that appearing goodness of Confucianism. And nowadays in that politics of Chinese communism regime, there were so much evil hiding behind so many good words by names.

As I turn my attention to western traditions and histories, and realize that that similar phenomena also existed. Therefore, that knowing or unknowing evil beings in various disguises of goodness are that nature of evil. On this finding, I try to look for words and ways to make names to express goodness that are distinguished from those disguises of evils, and are much less likely to be used by evils as their disguises.

On this intention, I casted the concept Selfish Morality. The word selfish means that a person cares only about herself or himself, and not about other people. The word morality in my mind means that an inner ability with a set of believes to distinguish the right and acceptable expecting behaviors from those wrong behaviors. I stress the word expecting in the expression the right and acceptable expecting behaviors, to make the word morality work in future direction.

As the word selfish and the word morality work together in the concept Selfish Morality, the meaning of Selfish Morality appears as the inner ability with a set of believes to distinguish the right and acceptable expecting behaviors for the expecting good benefits of good self from those wrong behaviors for the wrong benefits of wrong self. From this definition of selfish morality, I see an evolutional mechanism of selfish morality on future-directed healthy self-criticism of those wrong behaviors for the wrong benefits of wrong self in the past.

The word self is crucial for understanding the concept selfish morality. There are many different selves of the same person, such as my self in the eyes of God, my self in the eyes of my family; my deep self, my inner self; my past self, my future self, my self at now; my self as an officer, my self as a super-applied-meditator, my self as the image of the president as I try to see everything from the eyes of the president, my self as the image of God as I try to see everything from the eyes of God; and so on.

In the open understanding of self and on future-directed healthy self-criticism, I see the reunion of altruism and selfishness in the concept of selfish morality. ​

Edited August 25, 2015 by Exegesisme

[Freddy]

Nature didn't evolve us this way for nothing.

[Moonlight Graham]

Nature didn't evolve us this way for nothing.

Would you let someone die or be raped if you could get away with it and it would mean more money in your pocket?

[Freddy]

Would you let someone die or be raped if you could get away with it and it would mean more money in your pocket?

Would you?

Millions of humans on earth do everyday. But won't admit to it openly.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Freddy

[Moonlight Graham]

Millions of humans on earth do everyday. But won't admit to it openly.

So that's a yes? I asked you first.

What I'm getting at is, if you could get away with anything, what are your limits to selfishness, if any? Are laws the only thing preventing you from stealing anything you want, doing anything you want?

Edited August 25, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[Freddy]

So that's a yes? I asked you first.

What I'm getting at is, if you could get away with anything, what are your limits to selfishness, if any? Are laws the only thing preventing you from stealing anything you want, doing anything you want?

I'd say I have a much higher level of empathy then most. I can imagine what other living things would feel as a consequence of my actions.

As for chickens, I really don't care, enslave them, burn their beaks torcher them all you want. Mass industrialized slaughter them. As long as they can't express their pain to a judge, I have no problem with it.

I find our morality system very hypocrite, Because we pick and chose things but exclude others based on our own bias.

We ignore most things that can't speak up for themselves. Even thought it's obvious they can feel pain from our action.

I personally don't like our morality system as I find it illogical. It's based on convenience and our own bias. I find it hypocrite to protect only select things but not others. It's like a big kangaroo court with humans as top priority.

It's like the title. Selfish morality

I live my life attempting to cause the least pain in other living things, based on my imagination of how they would feel. But I'll not deprive myself of eating. Even if it causes suffering.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Freddy

[WIP]

Nature didn't evolve us this way for nothing.

Back up! Natural selection does not follow a plan or have anything to do with progress. Nevertheless, your comment is that of a sociopath, because humans have evolved natural phenotypic traits that give us basic fundamental moral principles (against murder, rape etc.) and these principles are culturally adapted and refined. It's about what WE want/not what nature wants.

[WIP]

So that's a yes? I asked you first.

What I'm getting at is, if you could get away with anything, what are your limits to selfishness, if any? Are laws the only thing preventing you from stealing anything you want, doing anything you want?

I have been revisiting my fascination with anthropology and archaeology that I stopped reading about decades ago. I'm back to the line of thinking that made the most sense to me in my radical youth days, first argued by Rousseau....that modernity has corrupted us/not made us better.

Most people aren't psychopaths.... though the number who are could be growing because psychopathic conduct is encouraged and worshiped in so many aspects of modern life....business, military etc.. but most normal people do not want to cause pain and suffering for others. The problem today, is that we are separated by growing economic divisions and those divisions alone (even aside from race and ethnic divides) wall us off into separate little niches, where we only have passing awareness of how other people live. We also aren't made aware of the slave-labour conditions elsewhere in the world to make cheap consumer products for us, nor are we aware of the appalling animal suffering to provide cheap meats and dairy products in our stores.

We can live in a protected bubble of ignorance today if we just consume mainstream news and live a relatively comfortable middle class life in this part of the world. But even without adding in the ecological consequences of modern life, we are living in modern cultures that are psychopathic, and some people decide that it's some sort of twisted patriotism to rally around our nations and ways of living, making them some sort of ideal standard....and voila! We have libertarianism and the idealization of selfishness.

[Freddy]

Back up! Natural selection does not follow a plan or have anything to do with progress. Nevertheless, your comment is that of a sociopath, because humans have evolved natural phenotypic traits that give us basic fundamental moral principles (against murder, rape etc.) and these principles are culturally adapted and refined. It's about what WE want/not what nature wants.

. Nature follows the plan of what works at surviving, and having many children. We are the result of billions of years of living things that acheved that. Edited August 25, 2015 by Freddy

[Freddy]

I have been revisiting my fascination with anthropology and archaeology that I stopped reading about decades ago. I'm back to the line of thinking that made the most sense to me in my radical youth days, first argued by Rousseau....that modernity has corrupted us/not made us better.

Most people aren't psychopaths.... though the number who are could be growing because psychopathic conduct is encouraged and worshiped in so many aspects of modern life....business, military etc.. but most normal people do not want to cause pain and suffering for others. The problem today, is that we are separated by growing economic divisions and those divisions alone (even aside from race and ethnic divides) wall us off into separate little niches, where we only have passing awareness of how other people live. We also aren't made aware of the slave-labour conditions elsewhere in the world to make cheap consumer products for us, nor are we aware of the appalling animal suffering to provide cheap meats and dairy products in our stores.

We can live in a protected bubble of ignorance today if we just consume mainstream news and live a relatively comfortable middle class life in this part of the world. But even without adding in the ecological consequences of modern life, we are living in modern cultures that are psychopathic, and some people decide that it's some sort of twisted patriotism to rally around our nations and ways of living, making them some sort of ideal standard....and voila! We have libertarianism and the idealization of selfishness.

Living is difficult. Try having children and teaching them how to live. It's a nightmare.

The idea we self domesticated ourselves makes me chuckle a little bit every time i think about it.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Freddy

[bush_cheney2004]

Living is difficult. Try having children and teaching them how to live. It's a nightmare.

The idea we self domesticated ourselves makes me chuckle a little bit every time i think about it.

Indeed....as our "moral principles" include abortion on demand....for the children.

[Freddy]

Indeed....as our "moral principles" include abortion on demand....for the children.

And that's a big proof of selfish morality

[Moonlight Graham]

. Nature follows the plan of what works at surviving, and having many children. We are the result of billions of years of living things that acheved that.

Yes that's true. But what happens when humans, as the apex species, have achieved a point in the West (and a few other places) where they have more than they could ever need to survive and live as well as possible, while others in society and across the world have their needs unmet? Should the more well-off humans feel a need to use their surplus to help those who suffer? Or should they keep their wealth for further comforts and recreation?

The same is with vegetarians/vegans. A few hundred years ago we killed animals and ate their meat just to survive. But now in our society we can survive without eating meat, so is it moral to enslave, torture, and kill other animals for what is essentially pleasure?

[Moonlight Graham]

IMost people aren't psychopaths.... though the number who are could be growing because psychopathic conduct is encouraged and worshiped in so many aspects of modern life....business, military etc.. but most normal people do not want to cause pain and suffering for others. The problem today, is that we are separated by growing economic divisions and those divisions alone (even aside from race and ethnic divides) wall us off into separate little niches, where we only have passing awareness of how other people live. We also aren't made aware of the slave-labour conditions elsewhere in the world to make cheap consumer products for us, nor are we aware of the appalling animal suffering to provide cheap meats and dairy products in our stores.

We can live in a protected bubble of ignorance today if we just consume mainstream news and live a relatively comfortable middle class life in this part of the world.

I agree very much with this. I've often wondered how Canadians would react if an Asian manufacturing factory were located across the street from where they lived or worked, where they could see them making around $1.30 an hour, the poor conditions they worked and lived in etc. so we can have cheaper goods. Would we still turn a blind eye to it? Globalization has meant exploitation is more removed from our eyes. Same if Canadians were exposed first-hand to the horrific suffering of animals we eat, would most people still eat meat/dairy?

[Freddy]

Yes that's true. But what happens when humans, as the apex species, have achieved a point in the West (and a few other places) where they have more than they could ever need to survive and live as well as possible, while others in society and across the world have their needs unmet? Should the more well-off humans feel a need to use their surplus to help those who suffer? Or should they keep their wealth for further comforts and recreation?

The same is with vegetarians/vegans. A few hundred years ago we killed animals and ate their meat just to survive. But now in our society we can survive without eating meat, so is it moral to enslave, torture, and kill other animals for what is essentially pleasure?

We all know what's going on. There is no excuse. And we continue to live the way we do. That answers your question, even the first one you asked me. It's wrong to believe we are morally superior. If we were, communism would work perfectly.

The difference between us is I've simply accepted that humans aren't nice and you still hold on to the naive idea that we are or will become nice eventually. I say, if we have been trying for 2000 years and this is the best we can do, It's just not meant to be.

We can be nice in our own bias selfish way. Beyond that, humans are not very nice. When I see kindness I'm pleasantly surprised and return it, But I don't expect it.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Freddy

[Moonlight Graham]

We all know what's going on. There is no excuse. And we continue to live the way we do. That answers your question, even the first one you asked me. It's wrong to believe we are morally superior. If we were, communism would work perfectly.

Honestly I think the vast majority of people are ignorant of what's going on. They're in their own little worlds living their lives.

The difference between us is I've simply accepted that humans aren't nice and you still hold on to the naive idea that we are or will become nice eventually. I say, if we have been trying for 2000 years and this is the best we can do, It's just not meant to be.

I never said that. I believe selfishness and being nice is within everyone. We need to be both for evolutionary reasons. I think that selfishness can be a more basic and seductive instinct, since it's needed to secure basic needs. Dogs will be nice to you until you get between them and their food. On the other hand, I see people being nice to each other every day.

We can be nice in our own bias selfish way. Beyond that, humans are not very nice. When I see kindness I'm pleasantly surprised and return it, But I don't expect it.

My main point is that humans have the capacity to reason. Morality exists because of reasoning, unlike other animals who act based on instinct alone. We have the unique ability to act in any way we want based on our own philosophies on what is right vs wrong. What I'm saying to you is that you have the ability to act in any way you think is just, and this is a choice you make. It's not dependent on "human nature" or how anyone else in the world acts. If you act selfishly, it's because you choose to do so, if you act altruistically it's because you choose to do so. There isn't anything inherently more "right" or "wrong" about being selfish or being altruistic, it's simply how each individual wishes to act in the world, and by extension how they want the world to be. You saying "I choose to be selfish because nature made me this way" is a cop out. Nature made you able to reason and gave you free will.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[Freddy]

My main point is that humans have the capacity to reason. Morality exists because of reasoning, unlike other animals who act based on instinct alone. We have the unique ability to act in any way we want based on our own philosophies on what is right vs wrong. What I'm saying to you is that you have the ability to act in any way you think is just, and this is a choice you make. It's not dependent on "human nature" or how anyone else in the world acts. If you act selfishly, it's because you choose to do so, if you act altruistically it's because you choose to do so. There isn't anything inherently more "right" or "wrong" about being selfish or being altruistic, it's simply how each individual wishes to act in the world, and by extension how they want the world to be. You saying "I choose to be selfish because nature made me this way" is a cop out. Nature made you able to reason and gave you free will.

your either a saint, or you compleatly missed the pointe I made, that you yourself most likely act in a selfish way everyday without even realizing it. You use ignorance as your excuse or cope out like you like to say.

Nature gave me free will and I've repeatedly told you, I will show kindness to whom ears & deserves it.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Freddy

[Moonlight Graham]

your either a saint, or you compleatly missed the pointe I made, that you yourself most likely act in a selfish way everyday without even realizing it. You use ignorance as your excuse or cope out like you like to say.

Nature gave me free will and I've repeatedly told you, I will show kindness to whom ears & deserves it.

Yes I act selfishly all the time. I'm not denying people are selfish. People have an inescapable desire to fulfill human needs.

[Freddy]

Yes I act selfishly all the time. I'm not denying people are selfish. People have an inescapable desire to fulfill human needs.

We have the capacity but it is not realistic to believe, humans will start constantly acting to the contrary of their basic instincts. Even if we have the capacity to do it. Which I believe you are grossly over-estimating.

I don't even believe your goal of superior morality is achievable based on the fact that morality is subject to many different possibilities based on different situations, changing the right decisions we should be taking. It's not always a matter of black & white.

I think you don't truly understand that the good and evil you base your morality on is actually bias and selfish towards yourself. That's because good and evil doesn't exist, as a ultimate power like you seem to think. It's relative to yourself. And that changes once you base good and evil and make something else the center.

Religion has brainwashed many to believe ultimate good and ultimate evil existe, when in fact it's good for me bad for me. Ultimate good and ultimate evil doesn't exist, it something we invented, and it's all relative to ourselves. Making it selfish right from the get go. The idea of superior morality is BS.

That's why we will never achieve ultimate good. It doesn't even exist in nature the way you think it dose. It only exist in a selfish form inside your head based on what's good for you or bad for you.

Even if we take that and appliy it to humans. It's still biased to ourselves as in what is good or bad for humans.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Freddy

[WIP]

. Nature follows the plan of what works at surviving, and having many children. We are the result of billions of years of living things that acheved that.

And natural selection is an amoral force of nature that does not provide moral principles or anything to guide human systems of ethics.

[Freddy]

And natural selection is an amoral force of nature that does not provide moral principles or anything to guide human systems of ethics.

humans have invented a moral systems of ethics & laws to better manage survivability of humans. Did nature evolve us to this behaviour?

By constantly executing criminals we are essentially evolving ourselves into moral thinking humans

Edited August 28, 2015 by Freddy

[WIP]

humans have invented a moral systems of ethics & laws to better manage survivability of humans. Did nature evolve us to this behaviour?

By constantly executing criminals we are essentially evolving ourselves into moral thinking humans

Yes, that explains why the most peaceful, most moral societies are the ones that have the most executions.....oh wait! Nevermind!

[Freddy]

Yes, that explains why the most peaceful, most moral societies are the ones that have the most executions.....oh wait! Nevermind!

Placing them in prison where they have very limited ability to reproduce, has the same effects. .

[cybercoma]

Did nature evolve us to this behaviour?

There is so much wrong with this rhetorical question that I have to wonder if you even know what evolution is.

[Freddy]

There is so much wrong with this rhetorical question that I have to wonder if you even know what evolution is.

We are trying to define what it is now. What we know so far is that you definitely have no idea, the rest of us are discussing possibilities of what it might be.

If you want to educate us on what evolution is then you are welcome to discuss it with us. Right now all you sound like is a jackass.

Based on your posts on this site I've read, you don't come across as very intelligent, Please prove me wrong.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Freddy