Is self interest the best or only basis for morality?
- Thread starter Lark
- Start date
In the survival of human beings, going back to evolution, we need each other. Preferably a group of people all who help one another and are in a close living proximity. Self-interest for human beings will be the key to extinction, and from the looks of it, not just our own.
Did we move to group living to help others? Or move to group living because it helped us?
doesn't self-interest contradict morality?
A distinction should be made between self-interest, selfishness, and greed. Everyone is self-interested to a degree, as everything we do is a projection of our worldviews and perceptions; however, that does not necessarily mean everyone is also selfish, placing their needs and desires above that of others, or greedy, satiating their desires even at the expense of others.
Following these distinctions, I think it likely that self-interest expresses as graded responses to stress and environmental pressures. The research I've read has found that people are more likely to express extreme moral behaviors when in dire straights than in mundane situations. For instance, in a situation where standing up for one's moral values means dying, more people are willing to forfeit their lives if it means the values they hold dear, and the environmental changes/effects those values demand, will survive and thrive. Moral dimensions change in proportion to the scale of risk. In high-risk situations, such as fighting the creation of a governmental tyranny, the scope and consequence of moral decisions expand, the individual thinking deindividuates and considers personal sacrifice more closely if it means the preservation of an ideal or virtue. Humans are social animals - community and its contents play a large part in our behavior. We're living in a totally different jungle now.
@Lark
If you're curious about moral behavior, consider reading up on social neuroscience and famous sociological experiments (i.e, Stanford Prison Experiment, Asch studies, Milgram shock experiment). The book "Social" by Matthew Leiberman is an easily accessible resource for social neuroscience (he's also the founder of the field).
Following these distinctions, I think it likely that self-interest expresses as graded responses to stress and environmental pressures. The research I've read has found that people are more likely to express extreme moral behaviors when in dire straights than in mundane situations. For instance, in a situation where standing up for one's moral values means dying, more people are willing to forfeit their lives if it means the values they hold dear, and the environmental changes/effects those values demand, will survive and thrive. Moral dimensions change in proportion to the scale of risk. In high-risk situations, such as fighting the creation of a governmental tyranny, the scope and consequence of moral decisions expand, the individual thinking deindividuates and considers personal sacrifice more closely if it means the preservation of an ideal or virtue. Humans are social animals - community and its contents play a large part in our behavior. We're living in a totally different jungle now.
@Lark
If you're curious about moral behavior, consider reading up on social neuroscience and famous sociological experiments (i.e, Stanford Prison Experiment, Asch studies, Milgram shock experiment). The book "Social" by Matthew Leiberman is an easily accessible resource for social neuroscience (he's also the founder of the field).
Last edited:
No. Because self-interest has nothing to do with selfish-ness.
One could easily have a degree of self-interest simply by being self-aware, but selfish-ness...that's a totally different matter.
I know that. But self-interest is likely the reason we came together into groups - we couldn't survivor on our own; thus, while living together helped us all, the basis of it was for self-interest - not selfishness!
self-interest might contradict morality..what is morality? Is morality based on the greater good? Given a choice between a 'self-interest' end and a 'moral but no self-interest end' what would you chose? What if it was a 'self-interest and immoral' end vs. a 'no self-interest and moral end'?
We are often guided by our own self-interest (not associated with selfishness), and are likely to choose it over what is defined as morality- but then again, who defines morality? And how is it actually defined?
Group living because it helped us, our children are weak and we needed a group to take care of them.
Self-interest defines morality. Morality is just an idea we came up with long ago to make people follow in ones self-interest. It has since morphed to what we perceived as 'this is inherently right and this is inherently wrong' however it's all been in self-interest. When white people took black people as slaves it was in their own self-interest, and back then it was morally right because 'blacks are the sign of satan' or some such bull shit theory was exclaimed. Then we abolished slavery because blacks don't have anything to do with satan, claiming white people did it cause their selfish and greedy which is just as true of people of color aside from the whole history of raping and murdering. And gay people are going to hell because it's not gods will and we should all procreate or whatever other excuse others would like to give, its icky, though now more and more people are saying gay people aren't going to hell and even though they don't like to think about what we do in the bed room we're still good people. Self-interest fuels morality, morality isn't really a thing.
Thus, the action was out of self-interest.
I have to agree with you- I lean towards this as well "morality isn't really a thing"
You say "self-interest (not associated with morality)" yet its sounding like selfishness to me. Its just a way to make it sound better, whithout any bad/moral/absolute connotations.
But the problem is that, the moment you avoid the word selfish, to escape from its moral connotations, you also escape morality completely. So by eliminating morality, there is nothing to prove that 'self-interest' contradicts morality, since we already eliminated the possibility of morality from the beginning.
The other possibility would be if we're talking about a different kind of morality, one whcih is weird and subjective, and than the concept 'self-interest' might have a good place there. In this posibility, one could argument whatever he wants, because it doesn't matter how what we call morality today evolved. One could have endless options.
For example, we could argue that in evolution, everything begin from a instinctual motherly feeling, than this instinct, which was good, begin to be perpetuated by nature, so today we have a evolved maternal instinct, which we call morality. There are thousands theories like this, one smarter than the other.
But this doesn't lead as anywhere. The big question is this: Do have humans intrinsic value or not? In other words, there is something as intrinsic worth in humans wich tells us that we have to consider them precious, and try to do them good?
What if we'll change 'self-interest' to 'self-awarness'?
Yes. The people who are the least selfish usually win in the business world. If you are a mechanic and you care for your customers, charge them a fair price, and fix the problems presented to you. People are going to like you and keep coming back. If you are a shitty mechanic who overcharges people and tells people they have problems with their car that they don't really have. People will eventually learn you are shady and you will go out of business.
Yes, I think so.
I believe we all have an individual purpose, to achieve it is to self-actualise. We live in a dualistic universe and so to some, self-actualisation is to be the stuff of nightmares to those who are attempting to self-actualise toward love, peace and harmony. We play antagonists to each other and switch roles at the appropriate time.
At any given time, however, what is right action is to be moving toward self-actualisation. We may have many traits in common and so share things that we consider 'right' or 'wrong'. When things like murder, rape, violence and domination (in the non-kinky sense) are considered 'wrong' by a majority, it is a sign that many people are moving toward the light side of the duality...awesome! Technically it is all good in the sense that it provides experience. But peace, love and happiness is a much more natural state of being for us...that's why it feels so good!!
So, yeah, I think self-actualisation is what determines individual morality and group morality is co-operation for mutual benefit.
The main difference is whether you believe yourself to be one with others. It could be just a spouse, or your children or it could be with everyone and everything through decades of spiritual discipline. It just depends where you're at but it is the same fundamental thing, only the scale changes based on capacity and potential but without diluting or concentrating the actual inherent value in the action. When you believe yourself to be utterly alone, self-preservation becomes the top priority. But this is morally right based on what they can hope to self-actualise as in the given incarnation.
I believe we all have an individual purpose, to achieve it is to self-actualise. We live in a dualistic universe and so to some, self-actualisation is to be the stuff of nightmares to those who are attempting to self-actualise toward love, peace and harmony. We play antagonists to each other and switch roles at the appropriate time.
At any given time, however, what is right action is to be moving toward self-actualisation. We may have many traits in common and so share things that we consider 'right' or 'wrong'. When things like murder, rape, violence and domination (in the non-kinky sense) are considered 'wrong' by a majority, it is a sign that many people are moving toward the light side of the duality...awesome! Technically it is all good in the sense that it provides experience. But peace, love and happiness is a much more natural state of being for us...that's why it feels so good!!
So, yeah, I think self-actualisation is what determines individual morality and group morality is co-operation for mutual benefit.
The main difference is whether you believe yourself to be one with others. It could be just a spouse, or your children or it could be with everyone and everything through decades of spiritual discipline. It just depends where you're at but it is the same fundamental thing, only the scale changes based on capacity and potential but without diluting or concentrating the actual inherent value in the action. When you believe yourself to be utterly alone, self-preservation becomes the top priority. But this is morally right based on what they can hope to self-actualise as in the given incarnation.
Last edited:
I don't think there was a point where all humans were wondering about thinking ''oh isn't life hard on my own; i think i'll join some others to improve my quality of life''
Humans were together FROM THE START
This means we must see the concept of an almost group mind existing overlaying the minds of individuals
It wasn't that people got together out of self interest, they were intimately linked together from the get go...seperation is an abheration
Even today where we are encouraged to be as seperate as possible, by a sick culture, we are NOT seperate but completely inter-reliant and inter-linked
Science is now beginning to rethink the idea that consciousness is created by the brain. So if consciousness is external and flowing through us then we can really think in terms of an interconnected consciousness
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/03/22/brain-create-consciousness/
How happy do humans who follow the capitalist idea of selfish self interest seem to you? Sure it works for psychopaths because they don't feel the same way as regular folks do but regular folks are social animals
Its not that they choose to work together it is that they evolved to work together...they're one unit
Chomsky speaks about how many people missinterpret the work of Adam Smith and about what Smith really meant was that he expected people to work together with their immediate national community rather than communities elsewhere in the globe ( a 'home bias')
[video=youtube;eaZORYaygo0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaZORYaygo0[/video]
Humans were together FROM THE START
This means we must see the concept of an almost group mind existing overlaying the minds of individuals
It wasn't that people got together out of self interest, they were intimately linked together from the get go...seperation is an abheration
Even today where we are encouraged to be as seperate as possible, by a sick culture, we are NOT seperate but completely inter-reliant and inter-linked
Science is now beginning to rethink the idea that consciousness is created by the brain. So if consciousness is external and flowing through us then we can really think in terms of an interconnected consciousness
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/03/22/brain-create-consciousness/
How happy do humans who follow the capitalist idea of selfish self interest seem to you? Sure it works for psychopaths because they don't feel the same way as regular folks do but regular folks are social animals
Its not that they choose to work together it is that they evolved to work together...they're one unit
Chomsky speaks about how many people missinterpret the work of Adam Smith and about what Smith really meant was that he expected people to work together with their immediate national community rather than communities elsewhere in the globe ( a 'home bias')
[video=youtube;eaZORYaygo0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaZORYaygo0[/video]
Last edited:
I asked my mom if it was stupid or noble to leave jobs for people who needed them more than me. She said stupid, so I guess there you have it. Though to me I still think it's a little of both, though I'm no idiot. And there you have the problem with the world. Sometimes I wish I had stayed closer to the levers of power and gone through the motions, and gotten some very nice deals if only I could settle like the rest and not rock the boat. I could be respected and wealthy, instead of poor and blacklisted (for my strange attitude, if nothing else). But you can only lie to yourself for so long. Depends on what your self-interest is, I guess, because if it's the case it looks like self-interest may be damaging to one's material well being.
Last edited:
Its one of my passions, I like to read moral philosophy probably the most next to religion and psychology.
I'm not sure why you think self-interest is selfishness. You can be acting in complete self-interest, and not be selfish. For example, at Christmas, I give gifts to my friends purely because it makes me feel good and I enjoy it, not for my friends. I am being generous with the intentions of making my self feel good. I think you're mixing up pro-social behaviours with self-interest. Within the domain of alturism, there's many different concepts.
Human nature in itself is based on self-interest. If we weren't naturally programmed to function on self-interest, than we wouldn't exist...it's just an innate behaviour we all have. I think we can choose to transcend above it- but we're naturally going to lean towards that, because it's the point of our existence imo (coming from a bio-evolutionary perspective).
If we think of the growth of civilization as tiny individual and self-contained units, we can begin to see that centralizing groups geographically was a function of humans realizing that they needed others for support. On an individual level, sure we were always together...but if we think of it in units - a group of 3-4 families as a sustainable unit - they came together to form tribes because it was easier for them to survived within a larger group. The choice to come together is predominately one of self-interest, as their change of survival significantly increased when they grouped up. This idea of smaller groups coming together to survive has expanded over the centuries to form cities. So while we might not see it now, the essence and purpose of cities was to increase our ability to survive- a function of self-interest!
I agree with this too! Nothing is ever black or white- it's grey.
I'm teaching an ethics course right now and this is a huge part of it....what is morality? And when does self-interest intersect and over come morality.
A great example is Heinz's case study:
Self-interest suggests that Heinz should break in to get the drug to save his wife. Morality says, stealing is wrong. Self-interest can't always define morality, nor can morality always define self-interest. What should Heinz do? What's the right choice? The reality is there isn't one!
I'm not saying self-interest is selfishness...I'm saying that it seems to me is one of those new terms I find which tries to replace the moral concept of selfishness with something more free from morality, make it sound more 'freshy', and not filled with 'guilty moral' connotations.
I'm ok with it
. I just need to be in touch with the changes in the dictionary. After all, its good to respect a language and its words, and you can understand it much better.