(July 1, 2015 at 2:54 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:(July 1, 2015 at 2:36 pm)smax Wrote: The whole point of the theory and this discussion is to examine the root of moral values. And, it sounds like, as you examine the root of your own actions, you are coming to realize that selfishness (self-interest) is at the root.
People also associate the word "selfish" as socially negative and as something commonly accepted as an unappealing characteristic. Therefore, in the pursuit of self interest, the word "selfish" is naturally rejected by the self serving individual.
I definitely do not find selfishness at the root of my own actions. Even though I'm a selfish person, most of my actions are done out of boredom, or an effort to combat boredom and my moral values come from a wide myriad of places. It's not a 'selfish' thing to deal with one's own boredom because there is no selfless alternative. It's not more selfish or selfless to remain bored. Selfishness has nothing to do with it and I think you and the other people who make this argument are just inserting selfish motivations everywhere where there are none. What I am finding more and more is that you've expanded the definition of selfishness to the point of ridiculousness. If Squashing a spider, not squashing a spider, eating a dog and not eating a dog are all selfish actions than it's a pointless definition that can be used on anything. NOT that everything is selfish.
Your problem is, you want to simplify the matter and say "Either eating a dog is selfish or having one as a pet is. NOT BOTH!!!".
The reality is, both actions are clearly motivated by self interest. Until you understand that, I doubt there is any chance of you understanding the concept of selfishness being at the root of moral values.