My supporting POV on selfishness motivating human moral values

[dyresand]

I think that it's a big misnoemer to say that 'we' collectively were for slavery or the genocide of the American Indians. There were always dissenters and slavery always had people opposed to it.

I don't think I ever inferred a complete and utter consensus. In fact, because moral values are selfishly rooted, it's naive and mathematically unlikely to think that a complete and utter consensus has every existed. People obviously had selfish reasons for wanting genocide and slavery and others had selfish reasons for opposing it. 

That's really not the point, anyway. The point is, theists often argue that there is inherent moral value which can only be explained by god. But the course of human history clearly demonstrates that no such divine moral value exists. We are individuals (or self), therefore, we are naturally selfish. Are values are based around that nature. That's why killing a spider or an ant or a cockroach is an action that has no significant effect on moral conscience. It does not evidently carry with it consequences for the individual. 

That is typical, of course. But, conversely, I have occasionally run into people who do have a moral conscience about killing certain insects like spiders. For example: I once had a person tell me, "Don't kill Daddy Long Leg Spiders, they kill other spiders and they eat flies." This person developed a moral association with the killing of one particular insect that was obviously rooted in selfish interests. 

I'm sure you know that, in some countries, people consume dogs as food. In the United States, that is generally considered morally appalling. And, why? Because people in the United States find joy in having them as pets. They have also been found to be useful in hunting, police work, and assisting the blind. But in other countries their value is found in the taste they can produce. 

Completely different moral values, both rooted in selfish interests.

People used the bible as a fact to own another human being. Then goes onto this fact okay you can own a human being. Then you jump into slavery
during the colonial days people, thought the slaves that gotten from africa were subhuman. needless to say they were wrong were all human. But all in all
if god is so perfect he would have said hey don't own people that's not cool.

[Iroscato]

I have another suggestion for the existence of morality.

Empathy.

[dyresand]

I have another suggestion for the existence of morality.

Empathy.

Here you go 

[CapnAwesome]

It's amazing how popular this idea that everything is rooted in selfishness is. This idea only works though if you expand the definition of selfishness so much to the point the word becomes meaningless.

[KevinM1]

It's amazing how popular this idea that everything is rooted in selfishness is. This idea only works though if you expand the definition of selfishness so much to the point the word becomes meaningless.

All this talk of selfishness makes me think of objectivism, which is pretty much bullshit across the board.  I'm not sure if that's what the OP is driving at, but it's the first thing that springs to mind.

[CapnAwesome]

It's amazing how popular this idea that everything is rooted in selfishness is. This idea only works though if you expand the definition of selfishness so much to the point the word becomes meaningless.

All this talk of selfishness makes me think of objectivism, which is pretty much bullshit across the board.  I'm not sure if that's what the OP is driving at, but it's the first thing that springs to mind.

Oh yeah for sure, although the ironic thing for objectivists, if everything is rooted in selfishness their philosophy (that selfishness is good) becomes rather null and void, since everybody is being selfish all the time anyway. Although I hear this idea from lots of people of different political persuasions. It's funny that the OP claims it as 'his theory' as though he thought it up. It's always the case that the definition of selfishness is crafted to fit the situation though. Even the thread starter said that both eating dogs and not eating dogs are selfish activities. In that case the word is truly meaingless when made so broad.

[JuliaL]

Your spider metaphor doesn't work for me at all.
I welcome them in my house along with my many centipedes (all of which I have named "Bob.")
They are my commando assassins in a never ending battle against six legged invaders.
Sadly, many of them have to hunt in the open which leaves them vulnerable to injudicious squashing.
But never by me.
I do wish the web spinners would clean up their projects when they are done using them.

[KevinM1]

All this talk of selfishness makes me think of objectivism, which is pretty much bullshit across the board.  I'm not sure if that's what the OP is driving at, but it's the first thing that springs to mind.

Oh yeah for sure, although the ironic thing for objectivists, if everything is rooted in selfishness their philosophy (that selfishness is good) becomes rather null and void, since everybody is being selfish all the time anyway. Although I hear this idea from lots of people of different political persuasions. It's funny that the OP claims it as 'his theory' as though he thought it up. It's always the case that the definition of selfishness is crafted to fit the situation though. Even the thread starter said that both eating dogs and not eating dogs are selfish activities. In that case the word is truly meaingless when made so broad.

I think self-interest may be a better term for what the OP describes, anyway.  Selfishness implies individualistic greed.  Self-interest is different.  It is in my self-interest to live in a thriving community and to do my part to help make it that way.  And that means doing my part to fit in, partake in and/or offer services, etc.

But, even then, self-interest doesn't drive every action.  Empathy is a big player as well.  It's what drives charity, and is a huge component in interpersonal relationships.  Sure, there may be some long term benefit towards helping someone, but most people don't think like that.  They simply see someone in need and work to help them, regardless if it's financial help, physical work, a shoulder to cry on, or simply being there to listen.

[smax]

I have another suggestion for the existence of morality.

Empathy.

I would argue that empathy, with all it's evident limitations, is the product of selfishness. 

Do you have empathy for the spider or an ant or a cockroach? And, while we are at it, do you really think you empathize with even all human beings?

Would you say that you empathize with Adolf Hitler, trying to imagine how he felt right before he killed himself?

And, even you do offer empathy in all those things, would you argue that your empathy is typical of the human condition?

Most likely the answer to all of these questions is no, and clearly the answer is no to the last question. 

So, with that, it's hard to argue that empathy is at the root of moral values.

[smax]

It's amazing how popular this idea that everything is rooted in selfishness is. This idea only works though if you expand the definition of selfishness so much to the point the word becomes meaningless.

I don't think it's that complicated at all. But, perhaps to sort through an obvious objection you have to this philosophical point of view, you could provide the alternative to this theory which you feel is clearly a better explanation for moral values in human beings. 

And, by the way, I never, not even in the slightest, tried to pass this theory off as my own, hence, the words "supporting POV" in the thread title.