My supporting POV on selfishness motivating human moral values

[Aristocatt]

Most of your post is a strawman

But the first paragraph deserves a response.
There are plenty of answers to the anthropological question about the origins of morality. Pointing out that people are selfish doesn't actually tell us how morality came about. The question itself might not ever have such a simple one dimensional answer, but no matter what the answer is, you can always reply with "no no no, see that is also the individual acting selfish".

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, it isn't.

Haha, I never take anything literally that someone says literally in front of. Much less LITERALLY.

... and when I see it, it generally turns me off from reading the rest, because words mean things.

[IATIA]

Morality is the product of selfish interests.

---

When slavery served a selfish interest, it was considered good and moral. When murder served a selfish interest, it was considered good and moral. How many bleeding hearts are there for the over 100 million Native Americans that were enslaved and killed during the invasion and progressive occupation of the land we now know as America? Of course people will say it was wrong, but it's mostly lip service. Clearly very few felt that way while the horrific injustice was taking place during the 15th century and on. 

Thanksgiving is LITERALLY the celebration of Native American slaughter. 

And, more to the point,  there is no evidence that a god of any kind has instilled any consistent sense of moral values, least of all Yahweh. Yahweh allegedly arranged for the 10 commandments but obviously never felt any individual conviction for most of those laws, as he has called for and condoned contradicting actions with several of those commandments. 

The reason for this is simple: Yahweh doesn't exist, except in the minds of those who invented him and those who perpetuate that invention. Since he doesn't exist, he needs people to make up his mind for him, which they do all the time. And, the moral values of people are motivated by selfishness, hence, they change with time and circumstances and different environments. 

Here's a clear example of the selfish nature of moral values: if your neighbor is a problem for you, or just simply someone you don't like, you will tolerate his existence because any action on your part, which threatens your neighbor's existence, also threatens your social standing and your freedom. However, if you see a spider in your home, you will likely end it's existence yourself or have someone else do it. You kill the spider merely because you don't like it's presence and you don't hesitate to kill it because there are no consequences for such an action. You have no moral conscience about ending the life of this being. You won't lose a wink of sleep over it. 

I know that probably seems like a silly example, and that's really the point. Moral values are so clearly associated with selfish motivations that some attempts at moral consideration seem ridiculously insignificant. The truth is, ANYTHING that cannot be traced back to a selfish motivation is not a moral consideration at all. The spider was merely one of literally thousands of other examples that support that theory. 

When the land we call America was invaded by Europeans, the "Indians" were widely viewed as vastly inferior and insignificant animals. This is a well documented point of view. They were basically spiders (or an infestation) that needed to be eradicated except for their slight value as rape victims, land guides, slaves, and christian converts/conquests that could be boasted about to European royalty.  

This may seem like a cynical point of view, but it's really not. Although our selfish motivations have led to much destruction and suffering, it's also served to further technology, extend the human life span, and enhance the overall quality of human life. 

In short, if we can somehow avoid bringing about our own demise, which is something we have a selfish interest in avoiding, it's easy to see an even more prosperous and mutually beneficial future. 

You see, that's the real silver lining in our selfish nature, it's to our benefit to create a more widely beneficial existence, and we, as a civilization, are learning that, even if it is at a relatively slow progression. 

In time (a long time), I believe we will eliminate religion and the personal god, among many other deterrents to human prosperity, and we will take huge strides toward a far more lengthy and fulfilling existence. Because eventually we will realize the things that stand in the way of a longer, healthier, and more fulfilling life and we will squash those things like a spider.

---

I have thought that for a long time and I basically agree with your premise, however, The wording could use some 'eloquent finesse', (which is definitely not my forte).  There is a tendency here to attack the words/wording first rather than discussing the idea.  The words/wording are not more important than the idea, but they are necessary to convey the premise, especially on a forum that is dedicated to 'the attack'.  

A christian wants to go to heaven and will do whatever they feel necessary to achieve that end result.  There certainly are different levels of "whatever they feel necessary", for some, even to the level of surpassing their survival instinct to "gain immortality".  That is not to suggest that only christians are "selfish", but they are such an easy target.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, it isn't.

Yeah, how often do you get together and celebrate Thanksgiving with Native Americans?

Actually, I am 1/8 Blackfoot.

But to address your question, simply because I don't go back to the reservation and celebrate it there doesn't mean that Thanksgiving is literally the celebration of the Native American genocide.

I suggest you learn what the word "literally" mean, and use it properly.

Thanksgiving was literally a day set aside for commemorating the first anniversary of the survival of the colonists in the Massachussetts Bay colony.  Lincoln later made it a Federal holiday:

Washington, D.C.
October 3, 1863
By the President of the United States of America.
A Proclamation.
The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth.
By the President: Abraham Lincoln
William H. Seward,
Secretary of State

It literally has nothing to do with the Native American genocide.

[smax]

Most of your post is a strawman

But the first paragraph deserves a response.
There are plenty of answers to the anthropological question about the origins of morality.  Pointing out that people are selfish doesn't actually tell us how morality came about.  The question itself might not ever have such a simple one dimensional answer, but no matter what the answer is, you can always reply with "no no no, see that is also the individual acting selfish".

Again, you said nothing, merely objecting to the method of presentation again. Just like the Captain, however, it seems like you have conceded the point in your own defensive way. 

Way to go, Strawman.

[smax]

Morality is the product of selfish interests.

---

When slavery served a selfish interest, it was considered good and moral. When murder served a selfish interest, it was considered good and moral. How many bleeding hearts are there for the over 100 million Native Americans that were enslaved and killed during the invasion and progressive occupation of the land we now know as America? Of course people will say it was wrong, but it's mostly lip service. Clearly very few felt that way while the horrific injustice was taking place during the 15th century and on. 

Thanksgiving is LITERALLY the celebration of Native American slaughter. 

And, more to the point,  there is no evidence that a god of any kind has instilled any consistent sense of moral values, least of all Yahweh. Yahweh allegedly arranged for the 10 commandments but obviously never felt any individual conviction for most of those laws, as he has called for and condoned contradicting actions with several of those commandments. 

The reason for this is simple: Yahweh doesn't exist, except in the minds of those who invented him and those who perpetuate that invention. Since he doesn't exist, he needs people to make up his mind for him, which they do all the time. And, the moral values of people are motivated by selfishness, hence, they change with time and circumstances and different environments. 

Here's a clear example of the selfish nature of moral values: if your neighbor is a problem for you, or just simply someone you don't like, you will tolerate his existence because any action on your part, which threatens your neighbor's existence, also threatens your social standing and your freedom. However, if you see a spider in your home, you will likely end it's existence yourself or have someone else do it. You kill the spider merely because you don't like it's presence and you don't hesitate to kill it because there are no consequences for such an action. You have no moral conscience about ending the life of this being. You won't lose a wink of sleep over it. 

I know that probably seems like a silly example, and that's really the point. Moral values are so clearly associated with selfish motivations that some attempts at moral consideration seem ridiculously insignificant. The truth is, ANYTHING that cannot be traced back to a selfish motivation is not a moral consideration at all. The spider was merely one of literally thousands of other examples that support that theory. 

When the land we call America was invaded by Europeans, the "Indians" were widely viewed as vastly inferior and insignificant animals. This is a well documented point of view. They were basically spiders (or an infestation) that needed to be eradicated except for their slight value as rape victims, land guides, slaves, and christian converts/conquests that could be boasted about to European royalty.  

This may seem like a cynical point of view, but it's really not. Although our selfish motivations have led to much destruction and suffering, it's also served to further technology, extend the human life span, and enhance the overall quality of human life. 

In short, if we can somehow avoid bringing about our own demise, which is something we have a selfish interest in avoiding, it's easy to see an even more prosperous and mutually beneficial future. 

You see, that's the real silver lining in our selfish nature, it's to our benefit to create a more widely beneficial existence, and we, as a civilization, are learning that, even if it is at a relatively slow progression. 

In time (a long time), I believe we will eliminate religion and the personal god, among many other deterrents to human prosperity, and we will take huge strides toward a far more lengthy and fulfilling existence. Because eventually we will realize the things that stand in the way of a longer, healthier, and more fulfilling life and we will squash those things like a spider.

---

I have thought that for a long time and I basically agree with your premise, however, The wording could use some 'eloquent finesse', (which is definitely not my forte).  There is a tendency here to attack the words/wording first rather than discussing the idea.  The words/wording are not more important than the idea, but they are necessary to convey the premise, especially on a forum that is dedicated to 'the attack'.  

A christian wants to go to heaven and will do whatever they feel necessary to achieve that end result.  There certainly are different levels of "whatever they feel necessary", for some, even to the level of surpassing their survival instinct to "gain immortality".  That is not to suggest that only christians are "selfish", but they are such an easy target.

I'm happy to listen to critique or suggestions on more effective ways to convey my point...

[Aristocatt]

I conceded the same thing that I conceded in the first post. Nothing has changed. Validity and Soundness are two different things. There is no way to falsify your claim. Getting to the bottom of it won't change the way we act, and if the bottom of it happens to be an answer other than yours, we will never know because there will always be a you out there.

[henryp]

A few thoughts I'd add:

1) I think people discount how much of human behavior is just doing what we're conditioned to do.  We don't over analyze everything.  "How can a religious person believe God is such and such!!?!?!?!"  They just don't think about it very hard.  They were taught something, it's not that big a deal, they just sort of go along with it.  

I think this idea of just mindlessly (on some level) doing what you were told to do accounts for a great majority of human behavior.

The reality is you can keep digging and asking why and looking for more foundational reasoning for all sorts of things.  But who's got time for that?  Like playing cards.  Some people know an Ace is a good card, so they raise with it.  It's not a good poker strategy, but we don't expect everyone to master poker theory if they want to sit down and play.  Same goes for life.  This onus to analyze things to the absolute root doesn't really exist.  You just dig to where you want, and go from there.  

2) An interesting issue with selfishness vs. empathy, is that people are told empathy is good, and selfishness is bad.  So it is natural, based on selfishness, that people would want to view themselves as empathetic rather than selfish.  But again, and I wish I'd put more thought into it in previous discussions on morality, I think conditioning is probably the biggest factor.

[robvalue]

I think if you regress the motivations behind morality you'll eventually hit on something that could be deemed selfish, but I think this is unavoidable because the morality comes from / is permitted by us so it must have a reason rooted in ourselves. Even if you've been brainwashed into the morality, you could still say you stick to it because it feels uncomfortable for you not to.

With the spider example, if I find one in the house I don't kill it. I never would. I could, and clearly there would be no serious consequences. But I don't, because I never want to intentionally hurt anything. Obviously this is an impossible standard to live up to on the whole, life is full of compromise; but in such cut and dry situations, I can avoid doing harm. I either leave them, or capture them and put them outside.

So is this morality selfish? On the surface it is not, but you could ask why I don't kill the spider. I don't want to take away it's life. Why don't I? Because I value life. Why do I value life? Because I want everyone and everything to have the best experience they can have. Why do I want this? Because it is what I would want if I was them. Why do I care, if I am not them? Because I feel a sense of kinship with other forms of life. Why do I feel this? Because hurting something else ultimately feels like hurting myself, and makes me feel bad. Oops, selfish!?

[JuliaL]

   smax
   Morality is the product of selfish interests.

---

When slavery served a selfish interest, it was considered good and moral. When murder served a selfish interest, it was considered good and moral. How many bleeding hearts are there for the over 100 million Native Americans that were enslaved and killed during the invasion and progressive occupation of the land we now know as America? Of course people will say it was wrong, but it's mostly lip service. Clearly very few felt that way while the horrific injustice was taking place during the 15th century and on.

   Thanksgiving is LITERALLY the celebration of Native American slaughter.

   And, more to the point,  there is no evidence that a god of any kind has instilled any consistent sense of moral values, least of all Yahweh. Yahweh allegedly arranged for the 10 commandments but obviously never felt any individual conviction for most of those laws, as he has called for and condoned contradicting actions with several of those commandments.

   The reason for this is simple: Yahweh doesn't exist, except in the minds of those who invented him and those who perpetuate that invention. Since he doesn't exist, he needs people to make up his mind for him, which they do all the time. And, the moral values of people are motivated by selfishness, hence, they change with time and circumstances and different environments.

   Here's a clear example of the selfish nature of moral values: if your neighbor is a problem for you, or just simply someone you don't like, you will tolerate his existence because any action on your part, which threatens your neighbor's existence, also threatens your social standing and your freedom. However, if you see a spider in your home, you will likely end it's existence yourself or have someone else do it. You kill the spider merely because you don't like it's presence and you don't hesitate to kill it because there are no consequences for such an action. You have no moral conscience about ending the life of this being. You won't lose a wink of sleep over it.

   I know that probably seems like a silly example, and that's really the point. Moral values are so clearly associated with selfish motivations that some attempts at moral consideration seem ridiculously insignificant. The truth is, ANYTHING that cannot be traced back to a selfish motivation is not a moral consideration at all. The spider was merely one of literally thousands of other examples that support that theory.

   When the land we call America was invaded by Europeans, the "Indians" were widely viewed as vastly inferior and insignificant animals. This is a well documented point of view. They were basically spiders (or an infestation) that needed to be eradicated except for their slight value as rape victims, land guides, slaves, and christian converts/conquests that could be boasted about to European royalty.  

   This may seem like a cynical point of view, but it's really not. Although our selfish motivations have led to much destruction and suffering, it's also served to further technology, extend the human life span, and enhance the overall quality of human life.

   In short, if we can somehow avoid bringing about our own demise, which is something we have a selfish interest in avoiding, it's easy to see an even more prosperous and mutually beneficial future.

   You see, that's the real silver lining in our selfish nature, it's to our benefit to create a more widely beneficial existence, and we, as a civilization, are learning that, even if it is at a relatively slow progression.
   

---

   In time (a long time), I believe we will eliminate religion and the personal god, among many other deterrents to human prosperity, and we will take huge strides toward a far more lengthy and fulfilling existence. Because eventually we will realize the things that stand in the way of a longer, healthier, and more fulfilling life and we will squash those things like a spider.

My bold.

It is if you so define it.
I largely agree with your contention that morality is a product of self serving behavior but in my model, I expand the concept into scales of complexity greater or lesser than human.
There exist recognizable self replicating assemblages from the very small, like a gene, to the very large, such as large social constructs; a religion, a company, a country.
Any replicating entity is subject to evolution through natural selection.  There will be a greater or lesser fidelity and frequency of replication depending on the individual instance and its environment.  A self aware organism might make better choices which serve to extend itself and its progeny into the future.  This could be looked on as selfish.  Morality as commonly viewed is a codification of this behavior amongst us self aware humans. Generally and largely transparently, we ignore other scales.  But it would be equally valid to see it from the gene's perspective, or that of a society. 
For instance, to a company, the greatest sin might be failing to make an economic profit leading to the bankruptcy and dissolution of that company.  In this case, to the company,  profit is moral and selfish and bankruptcy is the evil of extinction.  Not being self aware, the company cannot be cognizant of norms or intentionally act normatively.  In this it is me who is maintaining a consistent definition of morality.
Altruism involves the sacrifice by some individual to the greater good which could be seen as selfish behavior by whatever benefits from such good.  Working long hours and ruining a person's health would then be immoral to the person yet moral for the company.  I often ask if a mother bear that, while defending her cub, kills a human hunter, is acting morally or immorally.  In my view, it is both; moral for the bear, immoral for the hunter.
Your utopian statement above is shallow.  The world is more complicated than you appear to realize and your simple concepts of justice and good ignore time and context.  What are you doing that will be condemned by future society?  I can't predict what, but I'm sure there is something.  To think perfection of your own morality is arrogance.  The 'greatest generation' oppressed women, persons of color and anyone not outwardly heterosexual.  Were they wrong or are we?  Time will tell.