The True Root of All Evil...

[Not2BSubjugated]

That's my whole point: selfishness is a meaningless and thus errant place to draw the dividing line between good and evil. I'm glad you finally caught that.

One more quick point I’d like to make. Yes, selfishness can lead to a good “outcome” (ie you seek admiration from your peers so you develop a new wonder drug), but can’t you always achieve that same outcome by being completely selfless? If you were completely and utterly selfless, and admiration/money was not what you were after but rather the betterment of all mankind, wouldn't you still use all the same skills and resources at your disposal, the same amount of waking hours, sacrificing all other personal pleasures to achieve your goal of wonder drug?

Also think of this too. If money was your primary motivating factor to make a wonder drug, there’s a potential that you might get too much of it and thus have no more reason to create additional “good” in the world. Say you're already admired by your peers, and already a multi-millionaire and now have no more “reason” to try as hard. What about then?

If selflessness - instead - was the true root of your motivation, there’d be no reason to EVER stop until the world is 100% better in every way you could possibly contribute.
Right?

I certainly won't argue that a species of sentient beings purely dedicated to a unified view of advancement wouldn't be far more consistent about acting toward the "greater good". That's a given.

However, if you drop the unproven spiritual aspect of the conversation, you're essentially saying that if human nature were entirely different, we might be a more productive species. And if frogs had wings. . .

Your fourth paragraph is proveably correct. Again, worker ants act from a place of selflessness. The queen passes down the orders and the drone obeys mindlessly, working toward the greater good of the hive -literally- until it keels over and dies. Quite productive. Would that we were a hive mind, we'd probably be travelling the stars by now. Then again, most of us wouldn't have the capacity to appreciate it, so maybe it's not something worth lamenting.

 

[KevinWestern]

I certainly won't argue that a species of sentient beings purely dedicated to a unified view of advancement wouldn't be far more consistent about acting toward the "greater good". That's a given.

However, if you drop the unproven spiritual aspect of the conversation, you're essentially saying that if human nature were entirely different, we might be a more productive species. And if frogs had wings. . .

Well even without the spiritual aspect (as I mentioned above) consider this.

If good comes from a selfish action, it’s really no more than a “side effect” (accident). The wonderdrug happened only because the person wanted to make a lot of money or be admired. If the guy could have made a lot of money with a product that brought no good into the world, there's a chance he would have done that too - right? But if we can work to teach children to be completely selfless (I realize this is much easier said than done), the wonderdrug would happen directly because people would want to do good! In no situation would he instead dedicate his skill to making a useless (or damaging product) because money is no longer the motivator!

In a completely selfish world, good only happens by accident. In a completely selfless world bad only happens by accident.

Wouldn't you rather the bad to occur by accident vs. the good? I realize that you may think it's impossible to always act as a whole - which may be true - but if we at least do all in our power to try wouldn't "bad" things occur much less frequently (because "bad" is now the side-effect)?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I certainly won't argue that a species of sentient beings purely dedicated to a unified view of advancement wouldn't be far more consistent about acting toward the "greater good". That's a given.

However, if you drop the unproven spiritual aspect of the conversation, you're essentially saying that if human nature were entirely different, we might be a more productive species. And if frogs had wings. . .

Well even without the spiritual aspect (as I mentioned above) consider this.

If good comes from a selfish action, it’s really no more than a “side effect” (accident). The wonderdrug happened only because the person wanted to make a lot of money or be admired. If we can work to teach children to be completely selfless (I realize this is much easier said than done), the wonderdrug would happen directly because people would want to do good! It wouldn't be an accident.

In a completely selfish world, good only happens by accident. In a completely selfless world bad only happens by accident.

Wouldn’t you rather the bad to occur by accident vs. the good?

Actually, without the spiritual aspect and by my estimation, ALL ACTS ARE SELFISH.

If I value people being cured by a wonder drug and so I create a wonder drug, it was still a selfish act, yet the good I did was on purpose, not a side-effect.

Also, if you remove the spirituality and especially the dogma from the equation, whether good and evil happen by design or by accident is purely incidental and thus completely meaningless. Without the dogma, only the measurable results can be considered.

Physical reality has never once shown concern for a motive.

 

[KevinWestern]

Actually, without the spiritual estimation and by my estimation, ALL ACTS ARE SELFISH.

Even if you’re not spiritual, are you saying one cannot consider themselves as just a “part” of the whole? Same as the whole (like one big body that only functions best if we all work together)? Why does that concept need to be spiritual? I don't understand.

If I value people being cured by a wonder drug and so I create a wonder drug, it was still a selfish act, yet the good I did was on purpose, not a side-effect.

If the sole reason you created the drug was not for the admiration, not for “feeling good about yourself”, but rather just to benefit the whole and mankind – that is an act for THE WHOLE (is it not?). Isn't that the very definition of “selflessness”? You’re doing something not for you – the individual – but rather the whole of mankind. Right??

Also, if you remove the spirituality and especially the dogma from the equation, whether good and evil happen by design or by accident is purely incidental and thus completely meaningless.

I disagree.

If there is truly no difference between selfishness and selflessness (with regards to the “good”/”bad” outcomes), then it would make no difference to have a world full of selfish people or a world full of selfless people.

Is that actually the case? Or would you alternately choose one over the other? Why would you choose one over the other?

 

[RKMBrown]

I can accept the possibility that there is a spiritual consciousness that one might reach wherein his motives are the motives of some singular, universal conscience. That would negate that individual's selfishness, even by my understanding of it.

IOW your definition of selfishness makes the word meaningless. Your disregard for the soul makes your opinion that of a worthless biologic lump of mass. But, at least that explains your disregard and acrimony for selfless acts.

Wow, even after I distinguish my views from a concept of soullessness several times, you continue to assume that my philosophy negates a soul's existence. IT's like you're just firing off responses you had chambered before you even read what I posted.

I also don't have acrimony for selfless acts, I simply don't believe that there is such a thing for a creature possessed of its own individual consciousness. Honestly, I'm of the mind that anyone who's standards and values demand that they act generously toward others, or even demand that they do right by those they care about, is a pretty amazing person. I'm guess that it's your dogmatic, negative view of selfishness that's giving you the impression that, by accepting selfishness as inevitable, I must have similar negativity toward the opposing concept. I do not.

Where I agree with you is that my definition -does- make the word meaningless. It is simply an inevitability. That's my whole point: selfishness is a meaningless and thus errant place to draw the dividing line between good and evil. I'm glad you finally caught that.

I'm also a little sorry for you. "Your disregard for the soul makes your opinion that of a worthless biologic lump of mass." Do you even understand what this statement implies?

You've essentially said here that the two possibilities are that humans have souls or that they are worthless. Without a supernatural essence disconnected from observable physical reality, humans are pointless biological lumps.

Personally, I can look at the world, look at humanity, and look at the things we've achieved as a species, and find it all pretty fuckin impressive. I am quite awestruck by the existence that I can readily observe, even if there's nothing more to it than what I experience with my available senses.

The fact that you require a magical essence to validate humanity speaks of a very bleak outlook on life and sentience. I'm sorry that you don't find what you see special enough to impress you.

If all I am is a lump of matter that is capable of reacting to stimulus, then how am I different than a light bulb that shines light when electricity runs through it. Complexity?

You say "you observe," but what does that mean? Who are you? Why do you consider yourself as an individual? What makes you different? What makes any of us different? Some genetic randomizer that makes us react to the same stimuli in different ways? For example, random dead and/or newly grown neurons and synapses? No soul to guide sentience? No soul to decide whether everything is based on selfishness or not?

How impressed are you at our existence? Enough to believe it can't be "random?" If not random then why, where from... simply not knowing is not a good enough argument to dispute viable proposals.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I don't think "all decisions are selfish".

If you spend every waking opportunity to better the condition of those around you, and do it not because it makes you - the individual - feel good but do it rather because you legitimately love everyone, how is that being selfish?

That's the opposite of selfish.

Because you are the one expressing your highest value of loving everyone.

There is nothing more "selfish", if you must define it that way, than that.

 

[KevinWestern]

I don't think "all decisions are selfish".

If you spend every waking opportunity to better the condition of those around you, and do it not because it makes you - the individual - feel good but do it rather because you legitimately love everyone, how is that being selfish?

That's the opposite of selfish.

Because you are the one expressing your highest value of loving everyone.

There is nothing more "selfish", if you must define it that way, than that.

I (respectfully) think you need to examine these words a bit more closely. “Selfish” is acting for the separate self, it is doing things to make the singular – you – “feel good”. Even giving to charity can be “selfish” if you’re doing it solely to make yourself look good, feel good, etc.

However acting on behalf of the whole, and solely to better the whole at ANY expense to the “self” is by definition “selfless”. Right?

It's pretty simple; are you taking the action with the end goal solely being to help the whole, or are you taking the action partially or fully because there's something in it for "just you"? That's the difference between selfishness and selflessness.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I don't think "all decisions are selfish".

If you spend every waking opportunity to better the condition of those around you, and do it not because it makes you - the individual - feel good but do it rather because you legitimately love everyone, how is that being selfish?

That's the opposite of selfish.

Because you are the one expressing your highest value of loving everyone.

There is nothing more "selfish", if you must define it that way, than that.

I (respectfully) think you need to examine these words a bit more closely. “Selfish” is acting for the separate self, it is doing things to make the singular – you – “feel good”. Even giving to charity can be “selfish” if you’re doing it solely to make yourself look good, feel good, etc.

However acting on behalf of the whole, and solely to better the whole at ANY expense to the “self” is by definition “selfless”. Right?

Who holds "acting on behalf of the whole" as their highest value, the individual or the whole?

 

[KevinWestern]

Who holds "acting on behalf of the whole" as their highest value, the individual or the whole?

This convo is about ultimately transcending the individual, leaving ONLY the whole. And the whole will always act in the best interest of itself. This sort of spiritual concept (if you want to call it that) though may not be something you agree with - and that's fine - however that's how I'd need to answer that question.

Yes, the individual will ultimately benefit from acting on behalf of the whole (because he/she is part of the whole), however NOTHING he/she does is to personally benefit the individual.

 

[RKMBrown]

Who holds "acting on behalf of the whole" as their highest value, the individual or the whole?

This convo is about ultimately transcending the individual, leaving ONLY the whole. And the whole will always act in the best interest of itself. This sort of spiritual concept (if you want to call it that) though may not be something you agree with - and that's fine - however that's how I'd need to answer that question.

Yes, the individual will ultimately benefit from acting on behalf of the whole (because he/she is part of the whole), however NOTHING he/she does is to personally benefit the individual.

Yet the whole benefits, when one learns to love and better oneself. Yes?

 

[KevinWestern]

Yet the whole benefits, when one learns to love and better oneself. Yes?

That's an interesting concept that I've heard. Consider this, however:

1.) A great many people who learn to completely love themselves first never go on to love other people, right?

2.) However, all people who learn to completely love others (and the entire whole) ALWAYS go on to love themselves (given that they're part of the whole). It's the sure-fire way.

So why would you follow path #1 when you can simply follow path #2 and hit a home run every single time?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Who holds "acting on behalf of the whole" as their highest value, the individual or the whole?

This convo is about ultimately transcending the individual, leaving ONLY the whole. And the whole will always act in the best interest of itself. This sort of spiritual concept (if you want to call it that) though may not be something you agree with - and that's fine - however that's how I'd need to answer that question.

Yes, the individual will ultimately benefit from acting on behalf of the whole (because he/she is part of the whole), however NOTHING he/she does is to personally benefit the individual.

Now you are trying to vamp and parse your way out of the obvious: Every individual acts based upon their higher values in the given situation, i.e. "selfishness".

There is no whole without the individuals within it. They are subjective people, not automations.

Altruism is a fantasy.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yet the whole benefits, when one learns to love and better oneself. Yes?

That's an interesting concept that I've heard. Consider this, however:

1.) A great many people who learn to completely love themselves first never go on to love other people, right?

2.) However, all people who learn to completely love others (and the entire whole) ALWAYS go on to love themselves (given that they're part of the whole). It's the sure-fire way.

So why would you follow path #1 when you can simply follow path #2 and hit a home run every single time?

Thus the trick of learning to love-oneself without doing so "selfishly." Said another way, "to much of anything is bad." Balance in all things...

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Yet the whole benefits, when one learns to love and better oneself. Yes?

That's an interesting concept that I've heard. Consider this, however:

1.) A great many people who learn to completely love themselves first never go on to love other people, right?

That is their problem.

2.) However, all people who learn to completely love others (and the entire whole) ALWAYS go on to love themselves (given that they're part of the whole). It's the sure-fire way.

So why would you follow path #1 when you can simply follow path #2 and hit a home run every single time?

What makes you so certain that you can see into the hearts and minds of people that you could never know, that you can speak in such presumptuous absolutes?

 

[KevinWestern]

Yet the whole benefits, when one learns to love and better oneself. Yes?

That's an interesting concept that I've heard. Consider this, however:

1.) A great many people who learn to completely love themselves first never go on to love other people, right?

That is their problem.

2.) However, all people who learn to completely love others (and the entire whole) ALWAYS go on to love themselves (given that they're part of the whole). It's the sure-fire way.

So why would you follow path #1 when you can simply follow path #2 and hit a home run every single time?

What makes you so certain that you can see into the hearts and minds of people that you could never know, that you can speak in such presumptuous absolutes?

Why do you have to know what's inside of someone's heart and mind to love them unselfishly?

 

[KevinWestern]

Now you are trying to vamp and parse your way out of the obvious: Every individual acts based upon their higher values in the given situation, i.e. "selfishness".

There is no whole without the individuals within it. They are subjective people, not automations.

Altruism is a fantasy.

I don't believe it is a fantasy. You might, but that's fine.

I hold the belief that is possible to discover a profound sense of oneness (via mediation, etc), and that it's possible to ultimately transcend the ego - the self - permanently at the moment a higher form of enlightenment is achieved.

When one has transcended his/her ego, and is in full control of all of the emotions that are designed to only protect/comfort the self (at the expense of the whole), he/she can truly act selflessly, always.

This concept has been floating around for a long time, and has a rich history around it (and actually has a root in many world religions - especially Buddhism, Hinduism, and even Christianity); I'm definitely not just "making things up".

 

[thebrucebeat]

That's an interesting concept that I've heard. Consider this, however:

1.) A great many people who learn to completely love themselves first never go on to love other people, right?

That is their problem.

2.) However, all people who learn to completely love others (and the entire whole) ALWAYS go on to love themselves (given that they're part of the whole). It's the sure-fire way.

So why would you follow path #1 when you can simply follow path #2 and hit a home run every single time?

What makes you so certain that you can see into the hearts and minds of people that you could never know, that you can speak in such presumptuous absolutes?

Why do you have to know what's inside of someone's heart and mind to love them unselfishly?

What would you love about them other than their heart and mind?
Buns?

 

[KevinWestern]

What would you love about them other than their heart and mind?
Buns?

Lol, maybe the buns.

But on a serious note – should we set the criteria for “loving someone” as you must FIRST know their heart/mind to an extent to "confirm" they're smart, attractive, or kind? If you love someone because they're attractive and kind, are you loving them because YOU TRULY LOVE THEM or because you "get off" on their attractiveness (sexually) and enjoy that they're open to talking/listening to your ideas (kindness). That's selfish love, I think.

So think of it this way; if a mom has a son and he grows up to be a large, mean, and overall unsavory person would you challenge her when she says “she truly and unconditionally loves him”? I think it's more than possible to love people regardless of who they are as an individual.

.

 

[thebrucebeat]

What would you love about them other than their heart and mind?
Buns?

Lol, maybe the buns.

But on a serious note – should we set the criteria for “being loved” at one FIRST knowing their heart/mind to an extend and "confirm" they're smart, attractive, or kind? If you love someone because they're attractive and kind, are you loving them because YOU TRULY LOVE THEM or because you "get off" on their attractiveness (sexually) and enjoy that they're open to talking/listening to your ideas (kindness). That's selfish love, I think.

If a mom has a son and he grows up to be a large, mean, and overall unsavory person would you challenge her when she says “she truly and unconditionally loves him”?

Do you know about the four loves?
Your kind of changing lanes on me.
Loving someone without consideration of heart and mind sounds a bit more like sexual attraction to me.

 

[KevinWestern]

Do you know about the four loves?
Your kind of changing lanes on me.
Loving someone without consideration of heart and mind sounds a bit more like sexual attraction to me.

No I don't think so. I'm saying love people unconditionally regardless if they're fat/skinny, kind/mean, smart/not smart, etc. Why would love require "conditions"?

When you start loving people based on "conditions" - like they're kind or attractive - you're starting to dive into the realm of selfish love.