The Reunion Of Altruism And Selfishness On Selfish Morality​

[Moonlight Graham]

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've never stated any goal of "moral superiority", or that morality is "black & white". I'm arguing against your idea that selfishness is the only behaviour that has resulted from human evolution. I think human nature and evolution and human behaviour is much more complex than that. I agree that "morality is subject to many different possibilities based on different situations". I'd also argue that being kind to others in certain situations is an evolutionary response as much as selfishness is. I'd also argue that being kind is acting selfishly in a way because it can provide benefits to the giver, including feelings of pleasure/reward derived from certain neurochemicals in the brain that are released when doing good deeds.

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.

You've obviously been reading some Nietzsche based on how you talk about good vs evil and good vs bad. How has he affected your views on morality? I never said good and evil exist, so that's a strawman. I agree that good and evil are invented concepts based on ones moral bias. I do not believe in "ultimate good" or "ultimate evil". I never said we should strive to be good or unselfish etc. I do believe people can be selfish in many situations, and there's inherently nothing wrong with that. So we agree more than you think. My argument is that selfishness does not make up the entirety of our human evolutionary behaviour. It's ultimately up to each individual to determine their own morality, based on what they think is "good" or "bad" for them or greater society.

[Freddy]

I've never stated any goal of "moral superiority", or that morality is "black & white". I'm arguing against your idea that selfishness is the only behaviour that has resulted from human evolution. I think human nature and evolution and human behaviour is much more complex than that. I agree that "morality is subject to many different possibilities based on different situations". I'd also argue that being kind to others in certain situations is an evolutionary response as much as selfishness is. I'd also argue that being kind is acting selfishly in a way because it can provide benefits to the giver, including feelings of pleasure/reward derived from certain neurochemicals in the brain that are released when doing good deeds.

Especially now that humans is the major cause of other humans deaths. With our population being as big as it is today.

You've obviously been reading some Nietzsche based on how you talk about good vs evil and good vs bad. How has he affected your views on morality? I never said good and evil exist, so that's a strawman. I agree that good and evil are invented concepts based on ones moral bias. I do not believe in "ultimate good" or "ultimate evil". I never said we should strive to be good or unselfish etc. I do believe people can be selfish in many situations, and there's inherently nothing wrong with that. So we agree more than you think. My argument is that selfishness does not make up the entirety of our human evolutionary behaviour. It's ultimately up to each individual to determine their own morality, based on what they think is "good" or "bad" for them or greater society.

If morality & laws have helped human survivability, then we may be acting this way simply because humans who are more prone to accept laws based on morality have achieved higher survivability then humans that do not, and have reproduced at higher rates. It's possible that kindness to one a other is a important human trait that has helped in not getting yourself killed.

Especially once humans became its own worst predator. It can also help explain why humans are the only animal on earth that has laws based on morality of equal rights among itself. Other animals don't kill each other among them self like humans have. It's not as simple as choosing, to act morally like you think. If it was, all animals could do it.

Like circus animals being beaten to follow instructions, many humans need to be beaten or severely punished into acting in a moral way.

Look at our children. Do they come out of the womb acting in a moral way? Some children find it easy to follow rules. Others fight it their whole lives.

Edited August 30, 2015 by Freddy

[cybercoma]

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.

I'm not here to teach you commonly accepted principles in science. If you're so confused about what evolution is that you have to have a discussion to define it, then you should probably head to the children's section of your local library and find a book for fourth graders that will bring you up to speed. Edited August 31, 2015 by cybercoma

[WIP]

It has to be noted that many anthropologists who specialize in studying our hunter/gatherer ancestors, feel that we never fully adapted psychologically to settled- mostly agrarian life of the last 10,000 years, let alone adapting to the new age of urban life surrounded and absorbed by personal high tech devices.

Our ancestors lived most of the history of our species in extended family groups that varied in size depending on resources available and frequency of travel. There is a lack of good evidence for the recent revisionist teaching that has gone back to savage primitive ancestors, as they try to make the case that our increasingly dystopian world is steadily improving and making us better! Our ancestors avoided confrontation rather than fight or kill nearby groups they came across, as they would be on the move anyway in a matter of days. Our ancestors were non-hierarchical...even the surviving hunter-gatherers influenced by moderns rarely established tribal hierarchies and they were not male-dominated societies either, as men and women in most groups except for hunting and fishing cultures of the far north depended on women for gathering most of the food.

Then along came agriculture and civilization shortly after. The world has mostly been dominated by warring patriarchal empires because settled matrilocal villages along river-valleys etc. had to fight fire with fire, and turn their societies into something as warlike as the invaders trying to overrun them.

In more recent history, we have a veneer of civilized behaviour, but that's largely because the empires today utilize a minority of the population to apply violence at home and abroad. So, much of the psychological illness and related problems that many people today have is coming from their inability to adapt to dealing with urban isolation and the extreme competition and striving within social hierarchies in today's civilized urban environment. I find it a stretch to blame most people for failing in a system that is psychotic, that can only be adjusted to by making a few compromises and trying to create our own private worlds of relative sanity.....that's where family comes in as the oasis in a desert of urban insanity. It's just not always an option for everyone, and aside from family, there are no other institutions in modern consumer capitalism that are not based on monetary transactions somewhere.

[Freddy]

I'm not here to teach you commonly accepted principles in science. If you're so confused about what evolution is that you have to have a discussion to define it, then you should probably head to the children's section of your local library and find a book for fourth graders that will bring you up to speed.

Well that's exactly on par with the rest of your other posts. Not that I had much hope you would write anything intelligent.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Freddy