Is self interest the best or only basis for morality?

[say what]

If you fire a bullet from a gun it doesn't dissapear from existence once it leaves the barrel...it follows a trajectory. If there is someone in the path of the bullet they will be hit by it...cause and effect

If you state an idea and issue it from your mouth it then can have an effect on the world; if there is someone in earshot of the verbalised idea it will enter their mind

If you are having a discussion about the nature of humans (please look at who the threadstarter is and go and have a look at what they have said elsewhere on the forum to see how there most certainly IS a political dimension to this thread) then there is a logical trajectory that will follow from what you assert as being human nature

So what i am discussing is the implications of these ideas

There is a clear faultline on this forum....for me it is one of the most intriguing things about it

What i have noticed is that the humanity is decent and deserves a decent society brigade are not very aggressive by nature and tend to get spoken over my the fuck humanity brigade; the most vocal group by far are the fuck humanity group....i like to try and counter that a little so they don't get it all their own way

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this. The OP asked for opinions on a topic that had a wide variety of perspectives. I also stated that my perspective was one of an evolutionary biology point of view.

While nothing in human history is isolated or unconnected, I do believe that you can discuss things from certain perspectives within isolation- or discipline.

I think it's great to discuss a variety of topics, such as implications- but my points were on the origin of self-interest. The implications and consequences of self-interest is also interesting, but can also be looked at throughout evolution, and more recent history.

I'm not trying to discredit or put down your points- I just genuinely, from where I was coming from, don't see the connection from what I'm saying, to the conclusions you're coming to (from what I'm saying)...that's not to say that your conclusions are wrong, it's just that I didn't feel I was touching on those topics, as I feel less comfortable discussing them due to my lack of understanding/experience with them.

 

[muir]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this. The OP asked for opinions on a topic that had a wide variety of perspectives. I also stated that my perspective was one of an evolutionary biology point of view.

While nothing in human history is isolated or unconnected, I do believe that you can discuss things from certain perspectives within isolation- or discipline.

I think it's great to discuss a variety of topics, such as implications- but my points were on the origin of self-interest. The implications and consequences of self-interest is also interesting, but can also be looked at throughout evolution, and more recent history.

I'm not trying to discredit or put down your points- I just genuinely, from where I was coming from, don't see the connection from what I'm saying, to the conclusions you're coming to (from what I'm saying)...that's not to say that your conclusions are wrong, it's just that I didn't feel I was touching on those topics, as I feel less comfortable discussing them due to my lack of understanding/experience with them.

That's cool...i'm not asking you to discuss these topics, i'm just sharing with you as someone who is usually reading off the same page my perspective about what the subtext of the discussions on this forum is

This subtext has been raging here for years....some are consciously aware of it and some are not

If you can see what i'm talking about the discussions here may take on a new light

it is a fundamental struggle within our society and perhaps even within ourselves

Am i making sense?

 

[say what]

That's cool...i'm not asking you to discuss these topics, i'm just sharing with you as someone who is usually reading off the same page my perspective about what the subtext of the discussions on this forum is

This subtext has been raging here for years....some are consciously aware of it and some are not

If you can see what i'm talking about the discussions here may take on a new light

it is a fundamental struggle within our society and perhaps even within ourselves

Am i making sense?

Oh for sure! And I understand where your coming from, and perhaps I was being blind to the currents of the forum.

My first few posts on this thread were just questions that I thought of- I didn't mean for them to generate anything more than discussion!

 

[LucyJr]

subjective morality: killing is wrong if you believe is wrong, or if you think is wrong; it is wrong and good what you believe is wrong and good;

objective morality: killing is wrong in any possible world, wether everyone thinks is ok, killing is wrong; if Hitler would had convince everybody that killing jews is good, his action, independent of any belief, would have been wrong. That's objective morality; it doesn't take in account opinions or beliefs, what is evil and wrong it is so, and what is good it is so, objectively, independent of our minds;

 

[muir]

Oh for sure! And I understand where your coming from, and perhaps I was being blind to the currents of the forum.

My first few posts on this thread were just questions that I thought of- I didn't mean for them to generate anything more than discussion!

It's all part of the discusion as far as i'm concerned!

This discussion in this thread is at the core of all these matters...its like the nuclear reactor that everything else comes from: the what is human nature debate

As i say the faultline is one of the most fascinating things about this forum; what makes it particularly interesting is that you can match up where someone is in relation to the faultline with their MBTI....that's not so easy to do anywhere else, but here people often state what their MBTI is

The faultline has always fascinated me but this forum gives an extra level of insight into it

The whole game....the media, the education system, the ideologies, the propaganda....all that stuff...its all about trying to pull people to one side of the faultline

After you debate and discuss with people here for a while you get a pretty good idea where people stand and sometimes you even get insight into why they stand where they stand

Many people are unconscious of how certain things affect their perceptions and they are not free to make a conscious choice about where they stand until they become consciously aware of the influences upon them and how they effect them

if these things become conscious for someone...although it can be a little rough at first...they then become a master of their own destiny...a person able to make an informed and conscious decision where they stand and why; once you have that as a person you know who you are at your core; whatever else buffets you in life...that core remains and can keep you on track

Its part of becoming self actualised

 

[Lark]

is self-interest not the fundamental key to evolution?
when it comes to our own survival, does morality even matter?

I think so, I think certainly since we've been able to say "I think" because consciousness and conscience matter more in a human being, at least one which is not damaged, than any instinct driven and "unthinking" animal species.

The authors who have argued otherwise have had to some pretty incredible sumersaults and rationalisation to support their cases, Dawkins got an entire book out of it with The Selfish Gene.

In some sense I believe the self matters, individualism and the self are socially useful, useful enough to have lasted this long and become institutionalised and psychologically embedded (I'm taking the view of most sociologists that society is ontologically a prior to the individual). Although in any philosophical sense it is always very qualified, distinctions are drawn between "selfish" and "self interested" behaviour for instance, or it is described as "rational", "enlightened" etc.

Even those "self" skeptics who've wrestled with the reality that some behaviours which seek to be the alternative lapse pretty quickly into different kinds of neuroticism, like Erich Fromm, resurrect the principle as "self-love" in contradistinction to "selfish" or "self interested". He makes a a persuasive case and I think there's going to always be that difficulty, it will remain a perrenial concept but one which has such a potential dark side that it will remain qualified.

 

[say what]

subjective morality: killing is wrong if you believe is wrong, or if you think is wrong; it is wrong and good what you believe is wrong and good;

objective morality: killing is wrong in any possible world, wether everyone thinks is ok, killing is wrong; if Hitler would had convince everybody that killing jews is good, his action, independent of any belief, would have been wrong. That's objective morality; it doesn't take in account opinions or beliefs, what is evil and wrong it is so, and what is good it is so, objectively, independent of our minds;

But there are many other issues of 'morality' that are debatable. Same-sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia...If morality wasn't subjective, then we would never have moral debates around topics in society!

Additionally, who decides what is moral? How do we know what is right or wrong?

 

[say what]

It's all part of the discusion as far as i'm concerned!

This discussion in this thread is at the core of all these matters...its like the nuclear reactor that everything else comes from: the what is human nature debate

As i say the faultline is one of the most fascinating things about this forum; what makes it particularly interesting is that you can match up where someone is in relation to the faultline with their MBTI....that's not so easy to do anywhere else, but here people often state what their MBTI is

The faultline has always fascinated me but this forum gives an extra level of insight into it

The whole game....the media, the education system, the ideologies, the propaganda....all that stuff...its all about trying to pull people to one side of the faultline

After you debate and discuss with people here for a while you get a pretty good idea where people stand and sometimes you even get insight into why they stand where they stand

Many people are unconscious of how certain things affect their perceptions and they are not free to make a conscious choice about where they stand until they become consciously aware of the influences upon them and how they effect them

if these things become conscious for someone...although it can be a little rough at first...they then become a master of their own destiny...a person able to make an informed and conscious decision where they stand and why; once you have that as a person you know who you are at your core; whatever else buffets you in life...that core remains and can keep you on track

Its part of becoming self actualised

Hi [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]


I always appreciate you providing me the opportunity to open up and learn something new and question prominent patterns of thought!

I know I often have personal conflict between what I've been taught (and what I've been told are primal traits/behaviours), and my own belief that we can go beyond what we believe our conscious and subconscious can do.

 

[say what]

I think so, I think certainly since we've been able to say "I think" because consciousness and conscience matter more in a human being, at least one which is not damaged, than any instinct driven and "unthinking" animal species.

The authors who have argued otherwise have had to some pretty incredible sumersaults and rationalisation to support their cases, Dawkins got an entire book out of it with The Selfish Gene.

In some sense I believe the self matters, individualism and the self are socially useful, useful enough to have lasted this long and become institutionalised and psychologically embedded (I'm taking the view of most sociologists that society is ontologically a prior to the individual). Although in any philosophical sense it is always very qualified, distinctions are drawn between "selfish" and "self interested" behaviour for instance, or it is described as "rational", "enlightened" etc.

Even those "self" skeptics who've wrestled with the reality that some behaviours which seek to be the alternative lapse pretty quickly into different kinds of neuroticism, like Erich Fromm, resurrect the principle as "self-love" in contradistinction to "selfish" or "self interested". He makes a a persuasive case and I think there's going to always be that difficulty, it will remain a perrenial concept but one which has such a potential dark side that it will remain qualified.

I agree, and like how you've pointed out the alternative views and definitions of 'self' and 'self interest'.

 

[muir]

Hi @muir


I always appreciate you providing me the opportunity to open up and learn something new and question prominent patterns of thought!

I know I often have personal conflict between what I've been taught (and what I've been told are primal traits/behaviours), and my own belief that we can go beyond what we believe our conscious and subconscious can do.

The parameters of what we perceive to be possible are usually laid down through what we are taught

[video=youtube;69F7GhASOdM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69F7GhASOdM[/video]

 

[LucyJr]

But there are many other issues of 'morality' that are debatable. Same-sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia...If morality wasn't subjective, then we would never have moral debates around topics in society!

Additionally, who decides what is moral? How do we know what is right or wrong?

Because there are debates on the topics you mentioned it doesn't mean that morality is subjective at all. This is saying something about society, not morality.

If you and I talk wether abortion is right or wrong, does that make morality subjective? Its absurd. If it were subjective, we weren't even debate the problem, because each of us can have its subjective opinion on the matter, and cosider it good.
It is the very fact that there are debates on moral topics, proves the objectivity of morality.

Additionally, who decides what is moral?

If morality is objective, than asking "who decides?" is irrelevant, because objective morality is not based on decisions or opinions.
If it is subjective, than the answer would be power I guess, the majority.

How do we know what is right or wrong?

That's a good question. The Bible says that God put the essence of morality in our consciousness. We intuitively, and by reason, know what is good and wrong.

 

[say what]

Because there are debates on the topics you mentioned it doesn't mean that morality is subjective at all. This is saying something about society, not morality.

If you and I talk wether abortion is right or wrong, does that make morality subjective? Its absurd. If it were subjective, we weren't even debate the problem, because each of us can have its subjective opinion on the matter, and cosider it good.
It is the very fact that there are debates on moral topics, proves the objectivity of morality.


If morality is objective, than asking "who decides?" is irrelevant, because objective morality is not based on decisions or opinions.
If it is subjective, than the answer would be power I guess, the majority.


That's a good question. The Bible says that God put the essence of morality in our consciousness. We intuitively, and by reason, know what is good and wrong.

If society determines what is and is not moral, then does that not mean that the outcome of morality depends on the make up of society? If there was a different makeup, would the outcome of morality be different? If yes, then morality is subjective. If morality was objective, in that there was one absolute truth, than we wouldn't be debating what is and isn't wrong- we would all know that it's an absolute truth. Because what is and isn't wrong depends often on what the greater society deems as being good (and also our internal morality), it changes. Because it changes, to me, that means it's not an absolute truth- thus open for subjective interpretation.

I guess I'm wondering if you think there is a 'gold' or standard absolute truth of morality...and that regardless of if we understand or know this morality, our actions can be moral or immoral? Or do we need to understand morality and what is moral, to act immoral? Can a child with no context of morality perform immoral acts? If you say that God puts an essence of morality in us, and we innately or intuitively know what is and isn't right, then (to me) it sounds like you're saying a child can perform immoral acts - even without any understanding of morality?

 

[Lark]

It depends what is meant by selfishness.

The only person I've known to defend selfishness as a virtue is Ayn Rand and most of the time that needs to be qualified or "explained" to be acceptable to anyone, I dont believe its because of neurotic producing brain washing or social norms and mores, although anyone wanting relief of guilt and rationalising some sort of despicable behaviour could buy into that message.

Erich Fromm developed the dichotomy of self-love versus selfishness because he recognised that the self, and even self interest, is still a vital part of altruism, gift relationships etc.

He considers narcissism to be synomynous with selfishness and considers them both to be different from a healthy version of the self because he considers a narcissist or selfish individual to be not only incapable of loving others but also incapable of loving themselves either. He refers to ancient religious precepts such as Jesus' and the prophets encouragement to "love others as you love thyself", you have to be capable of loving yourself first, which is the original version of the gold rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and I might consider it a better one because "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" could be pretty frightening if you're a psychopath or sado-masochist or sexual predator but others obviously are not.

Selfishness is also a sort of self-absorbed kind of thing too, although I think that's the point Fromm makes.

It all boils down to definition and clarification I guess. There are stupid dichotomies though, I think there's a self-interested basis for socialism for instance, rather than socialism being self-interest's anathema, and I do not mean that in any sort of "of course a free loader would think that" or "self-interest of the labourers" or anything like that whatsoever. Class struggles and free loader or free rider problems are perrenial and I think will exist in any possible or imaginable human society or economy.

 

[LucyJr]

If society determines what is and is not moral, then does that not mean that the outcome of morality depends on the make up of society? If there was a different makeup, would the outcome of morality be different? If yes, then morality is subjective. If morality was objective, in that there was one absolute truth, than we wouldn't be debating what is and isn't wrong- we would all know that it's an absolute truth. Because what is and isn't wrong depends often on what the greater society deems as being good (and also our internal morality), it changes. Because it changes, to me, that means it's not an absolute truth- thus open for subjective interpretation.

Let me ask you a simple question.

Suppose Hitler would have convinced the whole Germany, and the world, that Holocaust was moraly good, that exterminating jews was a higher good for the evolution of the ideal man. The question is this: If the whole world would come to think that Holocaust was good and not a immoral act, that is, every single person in this world, would Holocaust be good or bad?

 

[say what]

Let me ask you a simple question.

Suppose Hitler would have convinced the whole Germany, and the world, that Holocaust was moraly good, that exterminating jews was a higher good for the evolution of the ideal man. The question is this: If the whole world would come to think that Holocaust was good and not a immoral act, that is, every single person in this world, would Holocaust be good or bad?

This is just one and only one example of morality.

During the Holocaust, there were many people who did think it was morally okay. Many of the eugenics movements have felt it was morally okay to make the human race superior. My point is that because relies often on the social terms or majority belief of a group- what is deemed immoral changes. To me, if morality can change, it makes it subjective. Because I believe morality is subjective and evolving/change my answer to your question is this:

Based on my morality, the Holocaust was bad.

I would be interested in knowing your answers to the questions I posed you!

 

[LucyJr]

This is just one and only one example of morality.

During the Holocaust, there were many people who did think it was morally okay. Many of the eugenics movements have felt it was morally okay to make the human race superior. My point is that because relies often on the social terms or majority belief of a group- what is deemed immoral changes. To me, if morality can change, it makes it subjective. Because I believe morality is subjective and evolving/change my answer to your question is this:

Based on my morality, the Holocaust was bad.

I would be interested in knowing your answers to the questions I posed you!

Sure, I will respond to your other questions, but first I need to make sure I fully understand your answer.

You say:

Based on my morality, the Holocaust was bad.

Do you think your morality is better than Hitler understanding of morality? Beware that Hitler had a 'my morality' too.

 

[muir]

I think there is an objective level of morality such as exhibited by the capuchin monkeys that is innate..hardwired

I think we then overlay that with cultural conditioning and social taboos

Chomsky overturned the ideas of the behaviouralists who argued that when we are born we are a blank slate (tabula rasa) and that we can be programmed to be anything.

The super rich loved this idea as it meant that the poor could be kept in poverty after all that was just what they were conditioned for, but chomsky overturned this showing that we have a hardwired ability for language, therefore poverty was not justified

Here's a very readable article that covers it:

https://withoutwriting.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/chomsky-vs-the-brave-new-world-of-the-behaviourists/

 

[say what]

Sure, I will respond to your other questions, but first I need to make sure I fully understand your answer.

You say:


Do you think your morality is better than Hitler understanding of morality? Beware that Hitler had a 'my morality' too.

Hmm..my personal belief and understanding of truths in this world makes me feel that I cannot judge other's morality, only compare mine and others' actions to my own morality. The Catholic church is a good example- they believe morality based on the word of God; however, I don't agree with a lot of their position on what is, and what isn't moral. My morality is neither less or greater than theirs, just different. When they condemn things such as homosexuality as immoral, I, in my heart and soul, disagree with that and think that it is a completely moral act.

 

[say what]

I think there is an objective level of morality such as exhibited by the capuchin monkeys that is innate..hardwired

I think we then overlay that with cultural conditioning and social taboos

Chomsky overturned the ideas of the behaviouralists who argued that when we are born we are a blank slate (tabula rasa) and that we can be programmed to be anything.

The super rich loved this idea as it meant that the poor could be kept in poverty after all that was just what they were conditioned for, but chomsky overturned this showing that we have a hardwired ability for language, therefore poverty was not justified

Here's a very readable article that covers it:

https://withoutwriting.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/chomsky-vs-the-brave-new-world-of-the-behaviourists/

I do think that there is a fundamental understanding of how to treat others- compassion and kindness, I think (and like to believe!), are innate qualities of humans!

It is interesting to think about Locke's tabula rasa and how it fits into this discussion!

 

[muir]

I do think that there is a fundamental understanding of how to treat others- compassion and kindness, I think (and like to believe!), are innate qualities of humans!

It is interesting to think about Locke's tabula rasa and how it fits into this discussion!

There's also the idea of genetic memory and the overlaying of the nurturing mammalian brain over the territorial and aggressive reptilian part of the brain

We have these things hardwired within us and perhaps they often create a tension there....you know the good angel on one shoulder and the bad angel on the other? mammals nurture their young..so we need to have compassion within us