Why be good?

[Whateverist]

It sounds like Wally is admitting to being a sociopath.  

Well technically, he would be but for the saving grace of gawd. His fear of damnation makes his otherwise shitty intentions almost human. Let us thank gawd whenever one such as Wally finds God. (And ixnay about the lack of evidencay.)

[henryp]

Wallym, what of those of us who do good locally, while empathising with those who aren't local?  You seem to think "help" is only needed other than where you are locally. What about those who do good, not because it makes them feel good, but out of a sense of empathy for their fellow man?  Do you really think that's only out of a sense of "no choice but to care"?  Especially when there are people like you in the world who have made the choice not to care?

Take me, for example: I empathise with those abroad who are less fortunate; I even give money when I can to causes I think are worthwhile, and I have thought about and taken steps toward going to certain places abroad to help.  Also, I volunteer locally to help victims of sexual assault and domestic violence, along with some other, fluffier, kinds of volunteer work.  I will admit, I get satisfaction and good feeling about helping people, but when I'm helping someone who is starving or has been beaten or raped, the negative affect on my psyche more often outweighs the good feelings I have.  I have made a choice to care, obviously, if there are seemingly normal people in the world like you who simply don't.

So locally vs. abroad is important because of the evolutionary stuff (I think) Rythym has brought up.  Small 50-150 people groups.  These are the people you see daily and identify with.  And we're conditioned to care about those around us.   And while we're conditioned to care about "all" humans, it's not nearly as much as those in our City/State/Country/Demographic to care about people far away.  Just like we're told to care about animals.  But mostly Dogs and Cats, and less so Cows and Fish.

Looking at the US for example.  Most of the right side of politics doesn't want Mexicans coming into their country.  Most of the left doesn't want the US giving military aid to fight gross injustices around the world.   The key theme being that Americans >>>> Not Americans.  

I don't know you personally, so I can't really speak to any of your motivations.  But the choice issue here is: Do you think you could not care about someone who was beaten and raped?  Could you choose to be indifferent?

---

You're absolutely spot on. I am my own harshest critic. All we can be sure about is everyone has this one life, so I make it my job to improve it where I can for whoever I can. Of course I could "do more", that is always the case for everyone. But it is a big factor in how I live my life and what decisions I make.

It is a little bit of a chicken and egg I guess. Helping people makes me feel good. Very good in fact. But it seems to me this is a side effect and a bonus, rather than my actual motivation. I would still help people even if it made me feel bad to do so, because I've come to a rational decision to do that action. I won't repeat my sob story, but you guys know by now about my life and how this is very much the case. So even the evolution argument doesn't work when choices get to this stage.

And really, assuming we do have free will (not trying go get into that discussion here!) we can choose to ignore this action/reward system anyway, or bypass it. We can decide not to help people, and even harm them, even if it makes us feel bad. Eventually, we adjust to our actions I think and it becomes easier and easier to maintain.

You seem to have sort of a pavlovian response to pain, which makes sense.  Given the 'can't step on bugs' type stuff and your situation, I would guess you have a compulsion to alleviate/avoid pain wherever you see it?  I would imagine you have a much stronger and deeper reaction to this sort of thing than most?  

[downbeatplumb]

I don't think I'd go so far as to say we have no choice but to care. To borrow from the great PhilHellenes from youtube (wonder what happened to him, by the way?):

I try to be a decent person because there is someone who watches over me, who knows everything about me, my every thought and desire. He will be with me my entire life and judges everything I do; ultimately I am accountable to him for my behaviour and seek his approval while fearing his judgemental gaze.

He's in the mirror.

This is so true. I am by far my own worst critic.

Sometimes I wake in cold sweats because of things I've said. But no one else even remembers.

[henryp]

It sounds like Wally is admitting to being a sociopath.  I'm not saying that to be mean, wally, but actually to just point this out.  If he doesn't have (much) empathy, he may be right, it may not be a choice he's making.  Sociopaths, (not psychopaths), aren't entirely rare, and one of the key things is that they lack empathy.  Sounds like he never had it, and is just rationalizing WHY it's better not to happen...another common trait of sociopaths.

He probably can't help the way he thinks and feels any more than we can.  I'm extremely empathetic myself, but I don't chose it, I am just built that way.  As long as he's not out hurting people, he's being honest with himself and with us.  I'll be honest, I'd never (knowingly) be friends with someone like that because they will use people for their own ends without regard for them as a friend.  But he's right....he didn't chose to lack empathy anymore than we chose to have it.

Idon't even know my point here, I clearly agreeing that empathy is a generally usefull social tool or else it wouldn't be a common trait.  I feel bad for people without it, but I suppose they disdain people like me, and see us a perfect victims.  I guess I'm just saying, he is what he is...accept it, and don't friend him on FB? Sorry Wally.  This is a weird way of sticking up for you, I don't imagine you appreciate it either, lol, or that I'll win friends on the other side with this argument, but I do see it as truth, so I just felt the need to share I guess.
 
See...I married someone like you wally (I didn't know it at the time), a bit anyway, so I do understand, just a bit.

A couple corrections, I do feel empathy for some people.  My kid, my wife, some of my family, some friends.  The difference I have with the people here, is that what makes me feel invested in others is linked to something more tangible than "Oh, you are Homo Sapien too!  Best friends for life!"  Although, while that's the stated general belief, I'm not sure human behavior supports that.  Sort of like Catholics that don't bother going to church.  They probably aren't REALLY believers in Catholicism.

On the good news front, I will not be sending anyone facebook friends requests.  I have to remain anonymous so that when I execute my master plan, my enemies won't see it coming, apparently.

Which brings me to Parker Tan's weird assumption of maliciousness.  Many of you people are mean as fuck.  Just big ole snooty non-empathetic dickholes when it comes to the Theists on the site.  That minimalist guy is clearly a terrible human being. I am not that.  I am indifferent, not malicious.  My purpose here in 'using' you people is just to hear opinions, and bounce ideas off people.  Which works out well, because that seems to be the purpose of this site existing.  So I don't think I need to shroud my motivations in secrecy.

---

Re: How do I treat people in real life.

I have a pretty simple philosophy: I like the things I like. And don't like the things I don't like. So if I don't like being around someone, I just don't be around them. In the end, the people I like are the people in my life. And my mother-in-law can try to guilt me into visiting, and I just don't. Because I don't want to spend any of my time on earth around her, so I don't.

Do I tell people if they started being shitty and unlikable, I would stop being around them? I do not. But who does? Seems like that's a pretty standard thing. I'm just a lot better at it than most, because I don't feel some obligation to buddy up to all people because they are human.

[Angrboda]

I wonder though, even for someone with no empathy (not saying this is the case for wallym), if they make rational decisions to help people even though they personally get no feedback from their brain which acts as a reward... would the system adapt so eventually they could feel good about it? I may be totally off there, this is not my specialist subject, I'm just swinging in the dark with a blindfold on with my eyes poked out.

In 1968 Dr. Elliott Barker, a Canadian psychiatrist, came up with an unusual idea to treat violent psychopaths. He locked a small group of male offenders in a room for 11 days, during which time they were kept completely nude and given large amounts of LSD. The only food available had to be sucked through straws in the wall. Follow-up research showed offenders were one-third more likely to commit violent crime after release than those that didn’t receive the “treatment.”

http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/11/19/the-...ths-worse/

[robvalue]

Wallym: yes, I think I am extremely "hard wired" to want to prevent pain and suffering whenever I can, and to never be the cause of it. I feel absolutely awful if I cause someone else pain or upset, and beat myself up about it way too much.

I think we're dealing with two slightly different issues, maybe I can "split the fishtank" (that's not a phrase).

1) I don't care about other random people, so I'm not going to help them any more than I need to

2) I don't care about other random people, so I'll happily screw them over anytime I can get away with it for my own benefit

These are kind of two extremes, even within the scope of what you are saying. I get the idea that you are much closer to 1 than 2. Of course there are different degrees of "screwing over" too, from minor things up to killing people for their underpants.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Which brings me to Parker Tan's weird assumption of maliciousness.  Many of you people are mean as fuck.  Just big ole snooty non-empathetic dickholes when it comes to the Theists on the site.  That minimalist guy is clearly a terrible human being. I am not that.  I am indifferent, not malicious.  My purpose here in 'using' you people is just to hear opinions, and bounce ideas off people.  Which works out well, because that seems to be the purpose of this site existing.  So I don't think I need to shroud my motivations in secrecy.

Actually, my assumption was not that you are malicious, but taking your words at face value when I called you amoral. Perhaps if you read closer you wouldn't draw these inapt conclusions?

Also, how is it you can call someone a "terrible human being" when you reject the precepts of morality?

[henryp]

Wallym: yes, I think I am extremely "hard wired" to want to prevent pain and suffering whenever I can, and to never be the cause of it. I feel absolutely awful if I cause someone else pain or upset, and beat myself up about it way too much.

I think we're dealing with two slightly different issues, maybe I can "split the fishtank" (that's not a phrase).

1) I don't care about other random people, so I'm not going to help them any more than I need to

2) I don't care about other random people, so I'll happily screw them over anytime I can get away with it for my own benefit

These are kind of two extremes, even within the scope of what you are saying. I get the idea that you are much closer to 1 than 2. Of course there are different degrees of "screwing over" too, from minor things up to killing people for their underpants.

I don't kill people for their underpants.  But if child slaves are making my underpants in Malaysia, I don't mind.  I don't really have a lot of opportunities to screw people over that I don't care about, without risk of consequence.  Society has been set up in a way that, for me, that opportunity just doesn't arise often.  


I find a lot of my behavior that is 'bad' is about avoiding/not doing things, rather than doing things to other people.  Sins of omission as the good book would call them.

[robvalue]

That is what I figured

Just say, for the sake of argument, you could get a load of money by robbing some random person and you knew for sure you'd get away with it totally unscathed. Would you do it?

How far would you go and feel OK with it, I suppose is what I'm asking?

(If you want the tape of you killing that guy for his underpants send me a cheque)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYUi6J4ifzQ

[henryp]

That is what I figured

Just say, for the sake of argument, you could get a load of money by robbing some random person and you knew for sure you'd get away with it totally unscathed. Would you do it?

How far would you go and feel OK with it, I suppose is what I'm asking?

(If you want the tape of you killing that guy for his underpants send me a cheque)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYUi6J4ifzQ

The trick is knowing you'd get away with it.  If I had genuine unwavering certainty I could be rich at someone else's expense, and there would be no consequences, I'd do it.  

But that's a hard to imagine situation.  And the possible consequences are more than just jail/retribution.  Do wife and friends see the money, know how I got it, and negatively affect relationships I value?  Do I forever doubt the certainty of getting away with it?  
The thing that will almost always keep me in line, is that I'm content in my life.  So I'm not going to risk much, because the risk of loss is very large, while the possibility of gain is fairly minimal.

But again, the easy example of using illegal streaming, which probably works out to 1500-2000 dollars a year in content, is something I'm fine with the idea of.