P. Bateman
Vet
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,106
There are many people, usually nihilists, who argue that we should each seek to live life to its fullest regardless of what others think. The usual counter arguments usually rely on morality (Why people think that's a valid argument against amoral people I'll never understand.) and/or social responsibility.
We each should seek to live life to its fullest. The point of existence, despite all the romanticizing, is quite straightforward: Survive as comfortably as possible for as long as possible and breed. Any idea of morality boils down to an attempt to justify holding yourself back (or being held back by others) and holds no objective value. That said, no matter how individualistic a person may be we Humans are a collective species with strong family and friendly bonds having evolved from pack hunters. Humans must ether rule or be ruled by our very nature.
This leads to an interesting paradox: If morality is subjective then there is no true social contract. Yet if Humans are social, there must be social responsibility. Enlightened self-interest is my answer to this puzzle. Let's use a hungry beggar as an example. If a beggar comes to me asking for food and I have food to spare or a few bucks do I feed them? Personally, yes, because I gain emotional satisfaction from this utterly selfish act of charity. What of the person I saw refuse the beggar before me? I harbor no ill will for them, having found no emotional satisfaction or finding such satisfaction to be worth less then the cost to feed the beggar they had done the logical thing. And yet what of the hungry masses? If there is no social contract, there is no moral reason to feed them but there is a social responsibility to feed them the minimum necessary to survive lest they riot in the streets for food which would make for a bad day.
So there you have it, selfish acts of charity calculated to keep the social order intact while advancing your own quest to survive as comfortably as possible for as long as possible and breed.
We each should seek to live life to its fullest. The point of existence, despite all the romanticizing, is quite straightforward: Survive as comfortably as possible for as long as possible and breed. Any idea of morality boils down to an attempt to justify holding yourself back (or being held back by others) and holds no objective value. That said, no matter how individualistic a person may be we Humans are a collective species with strong family and friendly bonds having evolved from pack hunters. Humans must ether rule or be ruled by our very nature.
This leads to an interesting paradox: If morality is subjective then there is no true social contract. Yet if Humans are social, there must be social responsibility. Enlightened self-interest is my answer to this puzzle. Let's use a hungry beggar as an example. If a beggar comes to me asking for food and I have food to spare or a few bucks do I feed them? Personally, yes, because I gain emotional satisfaction from this utterly selfish act of charity. What of the person I saw refuse the beggar before me? I harbor no ill will for them, having found no emotional satisfaction or finding such satisfaction to be worth less then the cost to feed the beggar they had done the logical thing. And yet what of the hungry masses? If there is no social contract, there is no moral reason to feed them but there is a social responsibility to feed them the minimum necessary to survive lest they riot in the streets for food which would make for a bad day.
So there you have it, selfish acts of charity calculated to keep the social order intact while advancing your own quest to survive as comfortably as possible for as long as possible and breed.
