Is self interest the best or only basis for morality?

[say what]

I don't think it was an 'idea' i think it was just our nature...that's what i've been getting at, and possibly what the is getting at

Honestly, I think we're saying the same thing. I'm not saying our early ancestors stopped and said "hmm, hey, I think it would be better for me to stick it out with these guys".

What I'm saying is that self-interest in an innate behaviour in us - or as you said, part of our nature.

 

[say what]

lol i think our 'primal, innate behaviours' were working together as a community

This wasn't an idea we had...it wasn't a conscious act or decision...it just was our nature to be like that and it is still our nature to be like that

The idea of thinking ''hmm whats in my best interest here'' is a recent phenomenon which has been implanted by the psychopaths who formed extra social stratas that preyed on the rest of the humanity

Their politcial mouthpieces can still be heard today saying things like: ''you must operate only in your own interests, there is no such thing as society, its a dog eat dog world, people are innately sefish and greedy'' and so on because they want to destroy the community that is our strength and they want to justify their own abherent behaviours

They want to say: ''i'm going to take everything you have here and that is ok because it is just 'business'''

There's a lot of literature out there that suggests community living is in contrast to what we instinctually want to do; and even newer literature that suggests that community living is actually against evolution.

But I really believe you can't compare the social dynamics, or psychological dynamics of us today, to back then- because we've evolved so much from then. However, our primal brain and behaviours are still present, and are driving some of our actions/behaviours/responses/emotions, etc.

 

[LucyJr]

How can they be distinctly different?

We all need food. Is me eating my food, and not giving it to others who need food selfish?

You can have interest in yourself, and in others. Self-interest is hugely different than being selfish.

I want to respectfully say that I disagree

The thing with morality is, you either intuitively see it or you don't.
There are endles theories that try to prove how what we call morality today has evolved. Like this theory, self-interest.

But it isn't about that. One must simply ask himself: Do humans have intrinsic value or worth? If the answer is yes, than evolution is in trouble. For how can something evolve to be intrinsically worthy? It doesn't make any sense.
If thew answer is no, than morality is a illusion, or a subjective thing, a thing that is tied to feelings or instincts, or whatever-the-theory-propose, be it self-interest or fear-of-gods.
But saying that morality isn't actually so-much-of-a-morality, and has evolved, its dangerous. How we can make laws and use power to protect society? If morality is a illusion, than whosoever has the power, controls everything. So for the one who has the power, slavery isn't something bad (because it really isn't, if there is no morality). It can be just self-interest.

 

[muir]

There's a lot of literature out there that suggests community living is in contrast to what we instinctually want to do; and even newer literature that suggests that community living is actually against evolution.

Who do you think funds and creates that research?

Its the people who have something invested in breaking the community apart

Listen to people online....there is poster after poster saying: 'i'm lonely', 'i want someone to share things with', 'i need some help from someone' etc etc

People are crying out for community...for the community that has been taken form them...their support base

This idea...this myth that hollywood has sold us of find your one true love and settle down in your isolated house and everything will be ok...its bullshit!

We are supposed to be part of a community where we work with others to acheive meaningful endeavours whether that is growing our food, raising a barn, raising children, socialising, creating...whatever

But I really believe you can't compare the social dynamics, or psychological dynamics of us today, to back then- because we've evolved so much from then.

Evolved from when? Cities only began 10,000 years ago and for a lot of that time most people were outside the cities. People only moved enmasse into the cities in the industrial revolution in the 1700-1800's. That's not much time in evolutionary terms...not enough time to make significant changes to the structure of the brain

What has changed is not the structure of our brain but rather the ideas being implanted into it

However, our primal brain and behaviours are still present, and are driving some of our actions/behaviours/responses/emotions, etc.

There is a constant tension between what culture and law tell us to do and what we feel is natural....that creates cognitive dissonance
(anxiety that results from simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise incompatible attitudes, beliefs, or the like, as when one likes a person but disapproves strongly of one of his or her habits. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cognitive+dissonance)

 

[say what]

Who do you think funds and creates that research?

Its the people who have something invested in breaking the community apart

Listen to people online....there is poster after poster saying: 'i'm lonely', 'i want someone to share things with', 'i need some help from someone' etc etc

People are crying out for community...for the community that has been taken form them...their support base

This idea...this myth that hollywood has sold us of find your one true love and settle down in your isolated house and everything will be ok...its bullshit!

We are supposed to be part of a community where we work with others to acheive meaningful endeavours whether that is growing our food, raising a barn, raising children, socialising, creating...whatever



Evolved from when? Cities only began 10,000 years ago and for a lot of that time most people were outside the cities. People only moved enmasse into the cities in the industrial revolution in the 1700-1800's. That's not much time in evolutionary terms...not enough time to make significant changes to the structure of the brain

What has changed is not the structure of our brain but rather the ideas being implanted into it



There is a constant tension between what culture and law tell us to do and what we feel is natural....that creates cognitive dissonance

I guess I'm a bit confused as to what you're trying to get across.

From what I see you're saying, is that people need community - and I'm agreeing. You're suggesting that people are calling out for community because, in your example, they need social support. And I agree with this- community benefits us, we want it for self-driven benefits (because there's social support, physical support, financial, sustenance, etc.) - other people help us survive.

On the topic of self-interest, I see us agreeing...self-interest is a natural tendency for us.

We agree that communities benefit us, and that humans naturally (through self-interest) formed collective units to survive. (These ultimately expanded to the cities that we know today).

Other points:

*Credibility of research: this could be debated about anything. However, while I do think there is a monopoly on information, I'm not willing to toss out everything I know because it might be mislead. I think there are systems in place that provide credible evidence. But I also think this is a different topic

*Evolution of the human brain and society: Humans have only really lived 1% of their time on earth within more 'structured' civilizations. Prior to this, they lived as nomads, in small groups. It's believed that humans pairing up with other was key in the expansion of the human brain, and higher cognition. When I'm referring to to these units linking up, I'm talking about way back to the club and loincloth days!

*Community living helped us, but also limited us. We were in constant competition for resources (still are), and living in a community highlighted this competition...this is where the evolution of law and civil rules came about.

But I'm coming from a bio evolution perspective. There's many perspectives.

 

[say what]

I want to respectfully say that I disagree

The thing with morality is, you either intuitively see it or you don't.
There are endles theories that try to prove how what we call morality today has evolved. Like this theory, self-interest.

But it isn't about that. One must simply ask himself: Do humans have intrinsic value or worth? If the answer is yes, than evolution is in trouble. For how can something evolve to be intrinsically worthy? It doesn't make any sense.
If thew answer is no, than morality is a illusion, or a subjective thing, a thing that is tied to feelings or instincts, or whatever-the-theory-propose, be it self-interest or fear-of-gods.
But saying that morality isn't actually so-much-of-a-morality, and has evolved, its dangerous. How we can make laws and use power to protect society? If morality is a illusion, than whosoever has the power, controls everything. So for the one who has the power, slavery isn't something bad (because it really isn't, if there is no morality). It can be just self-interest.

For sure! I don't claim to be right or have the only answer- just spouting off what I think

Same for you [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION], I hope you know it's just interesting discussion that I'm trying to have!

You say that morality is intuitive...but isn't morality subjective? How can morality be intuitive if we all see morality to mean something different?
Who decides what morality is? If something is moral to you, does that mean it'll be moral to me?

We can act immoral for self-interest and know it's bad. Often self-interest conflicts with our idea of morality.

I guess I don't see it as being black and white.

"Do humans have intrinsic value or worth"

Intrinsic value to who? To themselves? Society?

 

[muir]

For sure! I don't claim to be right or have the only answer- just spouting off what I think

Same for you @muir , I hope you know it's just interesting discussion that I'm trying to have!

You say that morality is intuitive...but isn't morality subjective? How can morality be intuitive if we all see morality to mean something different?
Who decides what morality is? If something is moral to you, does that mean it'll be moral to me?

We can act immoral for self-interest and know it's bad. Often self-interest conflicts with our idea of morality.

I guess I don't see it as being black and white.

"Do humans have intrinsic value or worth"

Intrinsic value to who? To themselves? Society?

I think people have an innate sense of fairplay

Monkeys exhibit a sense of fair play:

[video=youtube;1wmUyOyM0m0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wmUyOyM0m0[/video]

 

[say what]

I think people have an innate sense of fairplay

Monkeys exhibit a sense of fair play:

[video=youtube;1wmUyOyM0m0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wmUyOyM0m0[/video]

How does fair play come into this?

Self-interest isn't a bad thing, or a negative action at all. Yes, it can be selfish, unfair, and harmful to others; but it doesn't have to be.

There's many sides to self-interest!

 

[muir]

How does fair play come into this?

Self-interest isn't a bad thing, or a negative action at all. Yes, it can be selfish, unfair, and harmful to others; but it doesn't have to be.

There's many sides to self-interest!

A monkey has nothing to gain by giving another monkey food through some bars; it just does it because it is in its nature

Why is this important?

because it underlies ideologies

The psychopaths want to portray people as ruthless, greedy, selfish and cruel and therefore deserving of everything the psychopaths are going to do to them

So...do you feel like a bad person? Do you feel deserving of the harms the psychopaths want to do you?

Or do you think that treatment would be an injustice?

If we all give in to the ruthless ideologies the world will turn into a very harsh place

 

[LucyJr]

For sure! I don't claim to be right or have the only answer- just spouting off what I think

Same for you [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION], I hope you know it's just interesting discussion that I'm trying to have!

You say that morality is intuitive...but isn't morality subjective? How can morality be intuitive if we all see morality to mean something different?
Who decides what morality is? If something is moral to you, does that mean it'll be moral to me?

We can act immoral for self-interest and know it's bad. Often self-interest conflicts with our idea of morality.

I guess I don't see it as being black and white.

"Do humans have intrinsic value or worth"

Intrinsic value to who? To themselves? Society?

If morality would be subjective, there would be chaos in world.

By morality being intuitive I mean that we intuitively recognise it and discover it. We just have to sit and think a bit.

I guess I don't see it as being black and white.

I think it is black and white. Just thinka bout it. If it weren't, why Hitler was wrong? He wasn't, if morality isn't 'black and white'.

Intrinsic value to who? To themselves? Society?

Intrinsic value simply. It doesn't have to be to someone.
If I do have intrinsic worth a criminal doesn't recognise or aknowledge my intrinsic worth, that doesn't mean I don't have it. Its independent of our mind, but is till there, because by reason we discover we are intrinsically worthy.

 

[say what]

A monkey has nothing to gain by giving another monkey food through some bars; it just does it because it is in its nature

Why is this important?

because it underlies ideologies

The psychopaths want to portray people as ruthless, greedy, selfish and cruel and therefore deserving of everything the psychopaths are going to do to them

So...do you feel like a bad person? Do you feel deserving of the harms the psychopaths want to do you?

Or do you think that treatment would be an injustice?

If we all give in to the ruthless ideologies the world will turn into a very harsh place

Just because we act in self-interest, and self-interest primarily drives our behaviours, doesn't mean we can't be alturistic? What it means is that if we were in a situation where we had to choose between ourselves or another for the food, we would pick us. If we are completely satiated and nourished, then giving the food away is at no loss to us.

I guess I'm not seeing the connection between self-interest and the above video on fairness and the monkey's behaviour. Would you explain it to me a bit more?

I'm also not seeing the connection between the idea of being a bad person and acting in self-interest. I'm missing the connections, sorry!

 

[LucyJr]

If self-interest is the basis for morality, than morality doesn't have to necessarely mean good. It can be evil, the other side of morality...
So psychopaths are acting for their self-interest, for the good of the community. The good of the community doesn't have to be really good, it can be evil. Good or evil, it is the "good" of the community, working by means of self-interest.

 

[say what]

If morality would be subjective, there would be chaos in world.

By morality being intuitive I mean that we intuitively recognise it and discover it. We just have to sit and think a bit.


I think it is black and white. Just thinka bout it. If it weren't, why Hitler was wrong? He wasn't, if morality isn't 'black and white'.


Intrinsic value simply. It doesn't have to be to someone.
If I do have intrinsic worth a criminal doesn't recognise or aknowledge my intrinsic worth, that doesn't mean I don't have it. Its independent of our mind, but is till there, because by reason we discover we are intrinsically worthy.

I think we just fundamentally disagree on the premise of morality. I truly believe morality is subjective and also contextual. It's not black and white. A very moral person may be put into a situation where their morality is broken. On the otherhand, a person could believe their actions are truly moral and good, but be harming others.

Ethics and morals are not cut and dry for me, they're very blurry and difficult. While I believe deontology has some value, in my heart I'm utilitarian.

 

[say what]

If self-interest is the basis for morality, than morality doesn't have to necessarely mean good. It can be evil, the other side of morality...
So psychopaths are acting for their self-interest, for the good of the community. The good of the community doesn't have to be really good, it can be evil. Good or evil, it is the "good" of the community, working by means of self-interest.

To me, this suggests subjectivity to morality.

In terms of self-interest as the basis of morality - this was in the context of a different aspect of this conversation, and I didn't explain the steps that were in my head well!

I was suggesting - just putting out there- that if self-interest lead to the collective society, and morality grew out of this unity of social group, then in some respects, self-interest has guided morality...thinking back, this might not be the best logical thought...but it's what my brain was thinking in that moment!

 

[LucyJr]

I think we just fundamentally disagree on the premise of morality. I truly believe morality is subjective and also contextual. It's not black and white. A very moral person may be put into a situation where their morality is broken. On the otherhand, a person could believe their actions are truly moral and good, but be harming others.

Ethics and morals are not cut and dry for me, they're very blurry and difficult. While I believe deontology has some value, in my heart I'm utilitarian.

Morality can be contextual or situational, but it can never be subjective.
The moment you say morality is subjective, you actually say there isn't any morality whatsoever. For how can morality be even real, when for me morally good is to steal from you, and for you morally good is to lie me? Likewise, one could argue that a alien civilisation, that lives at the far end of our Universe, could have developd a very different kind of morality ( which to me is unthinkable, but just to entertain this idea). In their morality, killing children is bad, and killing adults is good. It doesn;t make any sense, but if morality is subjective, this could be true, even worse.

There are some decent rules that are fundamental to any society, like justice, equality, dignity, decency, truthfulness, goodness toward others.

 

[muir]

Just because we act in self-interest, and self-interest primarily drives our behaviours, doesn't mean we can't be alturistic? What it means is that if we were in a situation where we had to choose between ourselves or another for the food, we would pick us. If we are completely satiated and nourished, then giving the food away is at no loss to us.

I guess I'm not seeing the connection between self-interest and the above video on fairness and the monkey's behaviour. Would you explain it to me a bit more?

I'm also not seeing the connection between the idea of being a bad person and acting in self-interest. I'm missing the connections, sorry!

What i am trying to highlight is that if you begin a debate with someone on say 'socialism v's capitalism' and there have been some epic debates on the forum then they eventually boil down to the question: 'what is human nature'

So capitalism roughly speaking is about advancing ones self interest at the expense of others whilst socialism is roughly speaking about working together to ensure that everyone is taken care of

One side of the divide will argue: 'human nature is greedy and selfish and all about competition' so that they can justify what they want to do which under capitalism would be to become a member of the capitalist class...which is to say that they would live off their investments ie off the sweat and toil of the workers

The other side would say that human nature is to cooperate to justify their vision for the world where the workers own and control the means of production

There are faultlines here and you can see these faultlines in the words of posters on this forum which is why the discussions get heated sometimes

The supporters of the humanity sucks and deserves everything it gets brigade are often either those that have been born into wealth as part of the capitalist class or those that are aspiring to become part of the capitalist class

The supporters of the humanity is not that bad and really deserves a decent world brigade are usually people who work for a living

You can see this divide kicking off at the moment in venezuala and el slavador as the wealthy landed class reject the democratically elected socialist leaders who were voted in by the peasant class

The wealthy landowners form right wing fascistic political groups which are backed by the right wing fascistic US government

The humanity sucks and deserves to be kicked in the teeth brigade do not really have any argument for their system. They are not arguing their case because they think their way will benefit everyone...they are arguing their case because they think it will benefit THEM

They have no moral leg to stand on but that will not stop them trying to bullshit you. They may even try bullshit arguments like saying that we should give the richest people tax cuts because then the extra wealth that the top 1% will have, will 'trickle down' to the rest of society, but this theory has been shown to be a lie and the gap between the richest and the rest is growing

At some point people need to get savy and realise what the game is here or the knowingly selfish, but small, portion of humanity are going to try and create a society where the rest of us have no rights and where the military and police are used to keep the rest of us in line

This is not theoretical musings...this is what is going on in our societies right now...which is why the debates are so hard fought

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=10252]say what[/MENTION]
Perhaps is better to define obejctive and subjective morality, just so we can be sure we understand what we are talking about?

 

[say what]

Morality can be contextual or situational, but it can never be subjective.
The moment you say morality is subjective, you actually say there isn't any morality whatsoever. For how can morality be even real, when for me morally good is to steal from you, and for you morally good is to lie me? Likewise, one could argue that a alien civilisation, that lives at the far end of our Universe, could have developd a very different kind of morality ( which to me is unthinkable, but just to entertain this idea). In their morality, killing children is bad, and killing adults is good. It doesn;t make any sense, but if morality is subjective, this could be true, even worse.

There are some decent rules that are fundamental to any society, like justice, equality, dignity, decency, truthfulness, goodness toward others.

Hmm...interesting.

There was a tread started here by me a few weeks ago on morality.

I still think it's subjective, but I certainly see what you're saying.

 

[say what]

What i am trying to highlight is that if you begin a debate with someone on say 'socialism v's capitalism' and there have been some epic debates on the forum then they eventually boil down to the question: 'what is human nature'

So capitalism roughly speaking is about advancing ones self interest at the expense of others whilst socialism is roughly speaking about working together to ensure that everyone is taken care of

One side of the divide will argue: 'human nature is grredy and selfish and all about competition' so that they can justify what they want to do which under capitalism would be to become a member of the capitalist class...which is to say that they would live off their investments ie off the sweat and toil of the workers

The other side would say that human nature is to cooperate to justify their vision for the world where the workers own and control the means of production

There are faultlines here and you can see these faultlines in the words of posters of this forum which is why the discussions get heated sometimes

The supporters of the humanity sucks and deserves everything it gets brigade are often either those that have been born into wealth as part of the capitalist class or those that are aspiring to become part of the capitalist class

The supporters of the humanity is not that bad and really deserves a decent world brigade are usually people who work for a living

You can see this divide kicking off at the moment in venezuala and el slavador as the wealthy landed class reject the democratically elected socialist leaders who were voted in by the peasant class

The landowners for right wing fascistic political groups which are backed by the right wing fascistic US government

The humanity sucks and deserves to be kicked in the teeth brigade do not really have any argument for their system. They are not arguing their case because they think their way will benefit everyone...they are arguign their case because they think it will benefit THEM

They have no moral leg to stand on but that will not stop them trying to bullshit you. They may even try bullshit arguments like saying that we shoudl give the richest people tax cuts because then the extra wealth that top 1% have will 'trickle down' to the rest of society, but this theory has been shown to be a lie and the gap between the richest and the rest is growing

At some point people need to get savy and realise what the game is here or the knowignly selfish, but small, portion of humanity are going to try and create a society where the rest of us have no rights and where the military and police are used to keep the rest of us in line

This is not theoretical musings...this is what is going on in our societies right now...which is why the debates are so hard fought

I guess for me, I didn't even see me touching on socialism or capitalism. I see how they're connected to the topic- but my intention was not to draw them into the conversation, as I know little about them.

 

[muir]

I guess for me, I didn't even see me touching on socialism or capitalism. I see how they're connected to the topic- but my intention was not to draw them into the conversation, as I know little about them.

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 by the fuck humanity brigade; the most vocal and aggressive 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