RE: My supporting POV on selfishness motivating human moral values
July 2, 2015 at 8:54 am
(This post was last modified: July 2, 2015 at 8:54 am by Tonus.)
(July 1, 2015 at 3:36 pm)smax Wrote: I agree with everything in your post, except the notion that selfishness loses meaning because of it's universal applications. You have to remember that we aren't talking about good or evil, or what does or does not benefit the overall collective. We are talking about the source of what motivates people.
I see. I think that it's simple enough to make the case that selfishness drives us. I just think that from there the only interesting question is the ways we quantify it. And that requires the collective, not the individual. On the individual level, selfishness of any stripe might be good. If you're the only person in a particular region (stranded on an island, for example), your activities will only affect one person and therefore your considerations of what is or isn't selfish really don't matter. Any action that is taken in your own interests is selfish, but by definition also beneficial or "good." Selfishness doesn't have a negative connotation in that scenario.
In a community or society, selfishness can have a negative connotation for the group, even if the selfish action benefits the individual. We can create a scale of selfishness, and that would make the concept more meaningful. But for the group it will require some watering down. The individual can easily create a scale that goes from "mildly selfish" (I helped others and it made me feel good) to "extremely selfish" (I hurt others for my own benefit). The society is more likely to want to turn that scale into "selfless" at one end and "selfish" at the other, with a clear dividing line that gives it an easy path to judging someone. This encourages 'mildly selfish' behavior and punishes 'extremely selfish' behavior. More than that, it encourages people to avoid even the middle part of the scale-- being 'moderately selfish' may be treated the same as 'extremely selfish.'
Sorry, but this stuff fascinates me. I find it unsatisfying to stop at whether or not we are X. It's much more fun to wonder why we are X and how it fits into the social dynamic.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould