Simple question for Christians.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, in abbreviated form, the reasoning goes like this:  I ought to be unselfish because it is better for the group, which is better for the species, which is better for me.  So why ought I be unselfish?  Because it is better for me.  But looking at what is better for me, is selfishness.  So all of this so-called description of where morality comes down to, gets reduced to this ludicrous statement:  I morally ought to be unselfish so that I can be more thoroughly selfish.  That is silly.  Because we know that morality can't be reduced to selfishness.  Why do we know that?  Because our moral rules are against selfishness and for altruism.  They are against selfishness and for the opposite.  When you think about what it is that morality entails, you don't believe that morality is really about being selfish.  Morality is about being unselfish, or at least it entails that.  Which makes my point that this description, based on evolution, does not do the job.  It doesn't explain what it is supposedly meant to explain.  It doesn't explain morality.

[color=#333333]It seems absurd in that you insist on using the word unselfish and selfish (and in that you've built a straw effigy to focus on).  The notion itself is fairly well constructed - and so some comments regarding whether or not the terms selfish and unselfish fit are resolved by simply not using those terms -yourself-, nothing about the justification itself needs to be changed, voila, appeal to ridicule unpacked and explained.  Perhaps you shouldn;t be unselfish, but there's no avoiding the fact that within our social groups being "unselfish" has demonstrable benefits. Perhaps you aren't being "unselfish" in order to get them, but you'll get them all the same. So...no, no ones saying "be unselfish so that you can more thouroughly be selfish" - except for you.....

Evolution provided us with a moral utility, this is inarguable, it manifests itself across many species and can be perused at length anytime you are interested in doing so.  That moral utility involves considerations of selfishness, regardless of whether or not you find them to be distasteful, and if it bothers you this much, again..just stop using the word?  

Morality is most definitely -not- about "being unselfish".....but I can see why you keep at it, since your "point" hinges on trying to find as many ways to comment upon the terms selfish and unselfish as possible before that final, hilarious, transference to evolution, as though it followed. It doesn't.

If you ask why a person should not be selfish, the answer -can- simply be that a person -should- be selfish. The morality of social creatures -does- provide opportunity to pursue own's selfish desires whilst simultaneously adding to the survival of the group and the individual beyond that which could be gained -by- an individual. That's one of the reasons that the moral utility provided by evolutionary development is so useful - it doesn't demand that we be something we're not. It's achievable. That's not the only reason to be moral, and I don't think that anyone has ever suggested so in any case. Evolution isn't meant to be an explanation of the entire moral field and every permutation thereof, it's use here is an explanation of how morality can come to be. Evolution explains this in a straightforward way, even if it doesn;t explain to you, some other, strange and unclaimed thing regarding a specific moral precept. You're a big boy, figure it out.