Altruism, morality and selfishness

@raidon04,

actually I could enlarge on that. My feeling about Ayn Rand is that she is was very popular philosopher for advertising, sales and marketing, and the motivational speaker circuit. I must admit to speaking from a position of ignorance because I have never read Atlas Shrugged or any of her other books, but going from the article I have read about her, I don't think she would be rated in academic philosophy. And I don't suppose there's anything wrong with celebration of individual achievement and the will to succeed, as far as it goes, and as a voice within the cultural milieu.

---------- Post added 12-07-2009 at 10:54 AM ----------

ah, interesting, and the Wikipedia entry on Joel Feinberg does indeed show that up. Thanks for the reference, he is an author I had not heard of previously.

@raidon04,

If a man was given the power of a god, would he be so polite? Would he do what was "right?"

I suspect he would have the generosity of the fearless, but also that he would take what he wanted without apology.

Other opinions?

@raidon04,

I respectfully disagree.
What reason would he have for expropriating men's values, or displacing their freedoms. There would be no purpose. He could easily earn any mortal value on earth. Or any other planet for that matter. Also, surely someone that is omniscient would have some divine moral code, or would at least see the error in evil

@raidon04,

Human's do have 'god-like powers' now, were you to ask anyone from, say, 200 or more years ago.

Let's see how we succeed in putting them to work, beginning this week, in Copenhagen.

@jeeprs,

I was playing the cynic, I suppose.

Yes, mankind has godlike powers, but I was talking of a man who alone has the power of a god. He has nothing to fear from other humans. He is supreme on earth.

The idea is what would man manifest in the absence of punishment/control from other human beings?

I think of the Caligula, but a mere man can be assassinated. What about a Caligula that was immortal? And if he were immortal, perhaps his attitude would be different. He would not have to rush. He would perhaps have the kindness that comes from security. But he probably would laugh at most of what we had to say, especially about morality.

I don't approve of this super-Caligula. But I think we should be honest about the power of the threat of punishment, and consequences in general. How much of our good behavior is simply prudence?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;108699 wrote:

I don't approve of this super-Caligula. But I think we should be honest about the power of the threat of punishment, and consequences in general. How much of our good behavior is simply prudence?

In Plato's Republic, Socrates tells the story of Gyges, the shepherd boy, who finds a ring that can make him invisible. He uses this ring to murder the king, seduce the queen, and take over the kingdom, and live happily ever after. Socrates suggests that if any of us had the ring of Gyges we would do the same, and that we remain moral only because we cannot get away with being immoral. And then Socrates raises the central question of the Republic, why should we be moral other than we cannot get away with being immoral? He finally argues that we should be moral because, at the end, it is in our own self-interest to be moral even if it does not seem so. Even if this were true, it obviously does not answer the question, why we should be moral even if it is not in our interest to be moral, or even contrary to our interest to be moral.

@raidon04,

Good post, Kennethamy.

Since we don't have the ring, we've got to be cunning linguists instead.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;108713 wrote:

Good post, Kennethamy.

Since we don't have the ring, we've got to be cunning linguists instead.

Which, I suppose, means that we should be immoral if we can get away with it? Does that mean that it would be moral to be immoral?

@raidon04,

unless you believe in karma, in which case, whatever goes around, comes around. (I do.)

@raidon04,

I'm just saying that moral behavior is also usually prudent. If the IRS wasn't around the corner, tax revenue would plummet.

I'm for morality. I think that humans live a better life if they give up murder, rape, theft, and adultery. Etc. But it's a trade off. Something in man agrees with the horrors of war. Also with the subjugation of woman. It's not pretty, but it's there. That's why we lock our doors at night and keep our wives out of bad neighborhoods.

Locks show what we really think of our fellow man. I believe the first mammals stole the eggs of dinosaurs for a living. But I could be wrong on that.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;108726 wrote:

I'm just saying that moral behavior is also usually prudent. If the IRS wasn't around the corner, tax revenue would plummet.

I'm for morality. I think that humans live a better life if they give up murder, rape, theft, and adultery. Etc. But it's a trade off. Something in man agrees with the horrors of war. Also with the subjugation of woman. It's not pretty, but it's there. That's why we lock our doors at night and keep our wives out of bad neighborhoods.

Locks show what we really think of our fellow man. I believe the first mammals stole the eggs of dinosaurs for a living. But I could be wrong on that.

You may mean, "John Locke". But I think you are probably referring to Thomas Hobbes and the state of nature.

@raidon04,

No, I mean locks. Like the ones they put on doors. But I do like Hobbes.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;108730 wrote:

No, I mean locks. Like the ones they put on doors. But I do like Hobbes.

Sorry. At first I thought you meant smoked salmon.

@raidon04,

Never tried those.

Smile

@kennethamy,

hey, i'm carazy about hobbes-calvin is pretty funny sometimes too.

kennethamy;108703 wrote:

In Plato's Republic, Socrates tells the story of Gyges, the shepherd boy, who finds a ring that can make him invisible. He uses this ring to murder the king, seduce the queen, and take over the kingdom, and live happily ever after. Socrates suggests that if any of us had the ring of Gyges we would do the same, and that we remain moral only because we cannot get away with being immoral. And then Socrates raises the central question of the Republic, why should we be moral other than we cannot get away with being immoral? He finally argues that we should be moral because, at the end, it is in our own self-interest to be moral even if it does not seem so. Even if this were true, it obviously does not answer the question, why we should be moral even if it is not in our interest to be moral, or even contrary to our interest to be moral.

this i find difficult to understand, how is it possible that being moral is not in our best interest? i believe it is, and we would know that unless, as in the submarine's first post, we are not really in touch with our own motives or desires. in other words, enlightened self interest would always take the high moral road.

@salima,

salima;108786 wrote:

hey, i'm carazy about hobbes-calvin is pretty funny sometimes too.

this i find difficult to understand, how is it possible that being moral is not in our best interest? i believe it is, and we would know that unless, as in the submarine's first post, we are not really in touch with our own motives or desires. in other words, enlightened self interest would always take the high moral road.

As the tale is told, Gyges rose from being a poor shepherd boy to being king, and lived happily ever after. That is an example of it's being possible for morality not to be in someone's best interest, and for immorality being in his best interest. I don't see what is difficult to understand about that.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;108789 wrote:

As the tale is told, Gyges rose from being a poor shepherd boy to being king, and lived happily ever after. That is an example of it's being possible for morality not to be in someone's best interest, and for immorality being in his best interest. I don't see what is difficult to understand about that.

just because he lived happily ever after (which i dont believe would be possible, it is only a fable) doesnt mean it was in his best interest. maybe for the purposes of accounting it might look that way, if one wants to discredit the possibility of there being anything beyond the physical, but there would be no point of discussing morality at all in that case.

i believe morality is in everyone's best interest, because to be immoral promotes immorality and it will work to destroy the human race from the inside out. even a liar hates to be lied to. you made a good point defining the difference between self interest and selfishness but then you bring out a story which illustrates selfishness and say it is an example of immorality being self interest?

could the shepherd in the story really believe he was a better human being for what he did, or could he honestly not care about it? would the people in his kingdom be happy to have him as king and not want to behave the same as he did, and someone ultimately killing him to usurp his crown? is there anything at all in this story that you believe points to the fact that what he did was in his best interest? is having material wealth in anyone's best interest? i have seen more than one simple farmer be corrupted totally by money in the past six years...and i dont believe they are happy. if that were true, rich people wouldnt commit suicide, but they do.

@raidon04,

"Practise random acts of senseless kindness". Do good for no reason and no ulterior motive.

Incidentally I saw Mohamed Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank, interviewed on television last night. He is just like that.

If your sense of goodness, truth and beauty does not arise from within your own being, then how can it mean anything? Just keep focussing on that and everything else in life will fall into place. Without it, everything else will fall to pieces.

@raidon04,

I suggest that we have both generous and malicious urges. It also seems like an ugly truth to me that sometimes the wicked prosper. But there have been times when I was lucky the wicked prospered.

@salima,

salima;109003 wrote:

just because he lived happily ever after (which i dont believe would be possible, it is only a fable) doesnt mean it was in his best interest. maybe for the purposes of accounting it might look that way, if one wants to discredit the possibility of there being anything beyond the physical, but there would be no point of discussing morality at all in that case.

i believe morality is in everyone's best interest, because to be immoral promotes immorality and it will work to destroy the human race from the inside out. even a liar hates to be lied to. you made a good point defining the difference between self interest and selfishness but then you bring out a story which illustrates selfishness and say it is an example of immorality being self interest?

could the shepherd in the story really believe he was a better human being for what he did, or could he honestly not care about it? would the people in his kingdom be happy to have him as king and not want to behave the same as he did, and someone ultimately killing him to usurp his crown? is there anything at all in this story that you believe points to the fact that what he did was in his best interest? is having material wealth in anyone's best interest? i have seen more than one simple farmer be corrupted totally by money in the past six years...and i dont believe they are happy. if that were true, rich people wouldnt commit suicide, but they do.

Psalms 37:35 I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree.

Philosophy Forum

Altruism, morality and selfishness

Quick Links

My Account

able2know