|
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Ok, there's a couple of things here that you should consider. First, there's a big difference between being actually right and thinking you are right at the time. Also, you might want to clarify what exactly your mean when you say "right" to avoid accidental equivocation. In particular, distinguish between moral "rightness," justifiability (in terms of what criteria?), and accuracy or correctness. |
I mean both morally and in accuracy/correctness. What the majority of people think is right.
| quote: | | Okay, is the person "thinking" they are right at the time or "feeling" they are right at the time? There is a difference. I'm also a little confused with the use of the word "correct" here: correct in what sense? Are these things objectively verifiable or are they correct in some person's subjective opinion? |
Both feeling and thinking (you could argue they are the same when it comes to decision making). The person has a desire that they feel they are making the right decision to attain.
| quote: | Ok, now you're just sounding naive. Given the evident diversity of the human species, how can we really believe that everyone is "equal?" And even if we could, how would that facilitate making the world a "better" place? Better in what way?
As for the "betterment" of society - everyone's going to have different opinions about what is better for society, so even if everyone were making decisions based on it, there still wouldn't be consensus. |
We're equal because we're all human, all on planet earth and all at the mercy of each other. Without selfishness there would be consensus.
| quote: | | Make no mistake, if it weren't for selfishness, none of us would even be here to contemplate such matters. No offense, but the ideal of "everlasting peace and happiness" sounds like something out of a children's book. The desire for nothing but peace is not one that all people share - and even those that desire it would likely not find themselves more fulfilled if they actually found it. As for happiness... it is really not realistic to expect continuous happiness regardless of one's circumstances. No matter how favorable those circumstances might be, they will eventually become the baseline and only things "better" than usual will elicit happiness. |
Granted, you can't be happy all the time because you would forget other emotions and become braindead.. but things like hard work and exercise can provide the negative counter-balance.
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Selfishness and Self-interest are two sides of the same coin... the coin that seems to flip at a moment's notice for some people. :/
I see what you mean - if humans worked with another more and less for themselves, it would be much easier to deal with many of the issues in our world right now that are neglected simply due to lack of support. Also, many of the blaring 'popular' issues that people seem to take heart in (war, famine, plague, pestilence?) would be dulled as people began to realize that these struggles are only caused by selfish peoples' preservation. But what would the world become were it not for selfishness and self-interest? In theory, I think that many of the problems people face on a larger scale would fade, but how would the quality of lifestyle be if people could not and would not do things for themselves? Eliminating selfishness is like taking out the ability to have chocolate ice cream - if all you have is vanilla, what does vanilla really taste like without chocolate to compare it to? I know metaphors of duality don't really get us anywhere, but my point is that people's self-interest is a good thing because it helps us survive through the extremes - selfishness is just overindulgence in this creed, and is usually considered bad, sure, but it's absolutely necessary to the human condition because it is what sets us apart from one another in most cases. Who are we if we have no investment in ourselves? |
This idea of total unselfishness sounds, on the surface, like people would have to sacrifice loads, lose their souls, become robots. But ultimately science/technology/etc. would advance so much that any compromise or sacrifice made by an individual would soon become insignificant due to the massive benefits gained by everyone.
+++++
I mean, I'm kinda playing devil's advocate here because of course I recognise the arguments you guys are bringing up. I think what I gained from this is quite simple - there will always be enough people who have such strong desires that they will take the destruction of mankind and the planet in order to obtain those desires. Theoretically my idea would work, and I'd like it to but realistically there's not a chance!
Shit, you can see how that could heavily depress some people. 
|
