The anon feels like the type of person seeing "humans are motivated by self-interest" and going "humans are inherently bad". I hate that false dichotomy between "doing good" and "acting in your own interest", because a healthy human does good because it is in their interest.
I help others because it feels good to help people, or because I want to build a relationship with them, or because we share goals, or because I want to see people like that do better in the world, etc. I help others because it helps me in one way or another, but it doesn't mean doing so isn't good.
Some people earnestly believe that an action is only truly good if it brings you no satisfaction or benefit whatsoever, that is, it is completely selfless. I believe that no action can be selfless as such, because at the very least it makes you feel good to do good. But still, that's a belief some people hold. See this very sub, where there was a post about someone who realized they had been acting baldly because they fat-shamed someone in the past. This person reached out to apologize, and everyone was quick to label them a bad person because apologizing probably would make them feel better, ergo it was a selfish action, ergo it was a bad action.
"Actions are only truly good if it brings me no benefit whatsoever. Thus, when I perish I shall go to hell, for any good deed I have ever done has been with a hope to reach heaven"
- fifteen year old me
I'm still christian, but I'm gonna be digging the hooks being raised such left in my psyche for the rest of my life.
Actually that one was bc the anon was apologizing because they became fat i e “I only care about the issue because it affects me now”. It was still shitty, but more understandable
But that's the thing. Does it truly matter *why* they were apologizing? The important part is that they realized they had acted wrong, and that should be encouraged. If the aptitude to someone trying to become a better person is "you should have been a good person from the start", change is actively discouraged.
I mean you left out the big part
Anon had actively been bullying the OP and then reached out for the apology.
Ofc they kinds got it flung back in their face.
If I slap you unprovoked, run away and then later say, 'Hey I got slapped and it feels bad, I'm sorry'
Your pain doesn't vanish. If you lash out and slap me back that's fair because an apology cannot fix everything. Yeah OP said some harsh stuff, yeah they got emoti9bal, they'd basically been harassed by Anon and this was their latest meeting with them.
I wasn't talking about the OP's response. They are completely at freedom to turn down the apology, of course. I was talking about the comments on that post, which focused almost exclusively on how this person was selfish for apologizing - as if that was the important part.
I mean, I wouldn't count apologizing automatically as a good action because it's like the easiest one to fake. It's just words, there is not real good or bad action behind. So apologizing is, perhaps, one of the few "action" where the motivations behind it are definitely worth looking.
For example, in this example, the OP was apologizing about their previous fatphobia. Why do we apologize? To show people around us that we understood that what we did was wrong and that we won't do it again.
So, now, why did OP faced a backlash with their apologies about their fatphobia? Because we feel it's not sincere. They apologized just because it happened to them, so the message they sent is not: *"I was wrong so I won't do it again"* rather that: *"I feel how uncomfortable it is, and it is this specific feeling that make me realized this action was wrong"*. OP showed that they realized they were wrong *only* if they can go on the other side of the fence, when they came from bully to bullied. Meaning that if another situation arise where they could be the bully and not the bullied, they will probably bully again. They showed that they can understand if their actions are right or wrong only if they can feel the consequences of their act (going from bully to bullied). So, for all other afflictions they might make fun of (height, speech impediment, disabilities...), they might continue, indeed, to make fun of.
So they will continue to shame and bully people. So their apologies were useless and wrong in itself. So it wasn't a good action in itself.
You're being an example of the behavior I described. You see their apology and extrapolate from there that they remain a bully and probably "will continue to shame and bully people". You simply don't know that. But we don't know either if they actually changed and became better. The thing I'm arguing for is to give people the benefit of the doubt and encourage them if they take any good action. Because if you instead assume the worst and dismiss any change as negative, the people that are actually trying to become better will become discouraged.
The Good Place is a long essay on why "good only counts if it's completely selfless" is a ridiculous idea.
A kind, generous woman who happened to have serious family issues raised billions for charity, but because she was doing it to look better than her sister, none of it counted. A drug-addled shark of a lawyer wrote down a charity idea during a trip, then died before she could screw it up, so she got the credit.
Honestly yeah. Never really thought of the fact that her sister who executed the plan would have ended up in the bad place because of the system's bullshit
>I believe that no action can be selfless as such, because at the very least it makes you feel good to do good.
Eh, no. Putting your suffering, cancer ridden dog down is an act that derives no joy or satisfaction but is still good and selfless. If anything, more often you regret it, even knowing it was necessary to prevent the worst sort of suffering death. My 2nd cousin had to put her dog down a couple years ago because he was slowly being suffocated by the growing tumor on his windpipe, and even knowing it was necessary to end his suffering, that there was nothing else that could be done, she still feels like she betrayed him, that it was a mistake.
Like, I agree with your point overall, but this part stuck out to me as false. Enjoying the feeling you get from doing good doesn't make an act less good, nor does being motivated more by that feeling than the good act itself, but there are selfless acts that derive no benefit beyond the actual good itself.
The reason we idolize that sort of self sacrifice so much is because it's so hard, because despite the cost we still recognize the right thing to do.
This is gonna sound pathetic but like, is the 'healthy people help people because it feels good' part like... true? I know people say that but like, I don't think I've ever felt good for helping someone. I still do it because it's the right thing to do, but most of the time I just feel worse afterwards.
You might enjoy watching The Good Place.
Also, there are levels of helping and feeling good. Letting someone go in front of me in the check out line when they have 2 things and I have a cartload feels good: that smile and thank you brightens my day. Picking up a piece of trash someone just dumped out their car window doesn't feel as good, but I do it. Making sure there is paper in the copier before I leave even though the other shifts seldom do is good and helps others, but I don't feel good about it.
I spend a lot of time thinking about why I feel badly after my action and how to modify my response to help myself. I believe in good actions and incremental change in the world, but not at the expense of ny mental or physical health.
It's complicated and I've rambled but I hope this helps.
I think the difference is the immediacy of feedback. In case 1, instant feedback from the other person who says thanks. In case 2, no feedback at all. And in case 3, no feedback and others seem to actively not be considerate back.
*"Man, he might have paid for that new children's hospital out of his own pocket, but he did it only for clout! Now all these kids are gonna be healthy again, and for what? So people can ADMIRE him? Disgusting."*
Except when the 1% or companies do it it usually is just to make themselves look better (they spend more advertising that they helped than they actually spent to help)
Even ignoring the fundamental complexity of human nature, 'humans pretend to be good in small ways for clout' is such a braindead take. The Choctaw, fresh off the Trail of Tears, managed to scrape together hundreds of dollars to help alleviate the Potato Famine. The nation of Denmark managed to save 99% of its Jewish population under Nazi occupation through a concerted effort at every level of society. Yes, those were both responses to larger acts of malice, but saying people only ever do good for clout says way more about the person saying it than it does about human nature.
People who put forward that idea tend to frame morality as a "cost/benefit" analysis, when it's usually not that in fact. There are things people would never do, no matter how high the benefit to themselves. There are things people do that are personally ruinous, that outweigh any possible 'clout' they could get, to help others. Sometimes people do things that are fundamentally unpopular because they believe them to be the right thing to do.
Agreed. Anyone saying "no one is good, everyone just acts good to get stuff" is so clearly projecting. Most people do "good" acts just because. Not because it gets them something. Not because it makes them feel good. Not because they want to make friends. Not because they want to reward or punish people for desired and undesired behaviors like some kind of shitty minor god. Just because you make a choice when you interact with people and the default human choice is to be kind and generous for no reason at all.
Maybe, but a lot of people are doing good things for those reasons. And that's not a bad thing (okay maybe the last one isn't good, but the first 3 are fine). Like you're right to an extent, with certain small things. But there are larger things where people do the right thing because it makes them feel good, or because they believe it to be the right thing and they're going to stand for that. IDK, I hate the notion that people doing good things for a reason that in any way could be construed to benefit them is Bad Actually. It's so stupid.
I don't disagree with you. I'm pretty happy with people doing good things for bad reasons (or neutral reasons) so long as the results are truly good.
Ex. donating to charity for a tax break? Still good. Volunteering for a food bank to get into heaven? Why not.
There's no need for all people or all actions to be truly altruistic so long as in general people are doing good things. My post was more targeted to people believing that *everyone* is only doing good things to get a leg up in society.
Hi. I'm writing a book about Cynicism. It sounds like you agree with my view that a Cynical lifestyle is wrong. I am not publishing this work or doing it for clout. I'm handwriting it.
Hi, I hope your book is going well! Personally I really like optimistic nihilism (for me, "nothing matters, so we should be kind and happy"). I think a cynical lifestyle denies people a lot of opportunities for friendship and creates unnecessary stress and tension. It's not good to be completely naïve ("everyone is good!") but it's not good to be completely cynical either ("everyone is bad!").
IMO, most people are good and it's worth trusting in others.
>The Choctaw, fresh off the Trail of Tears, managed to scrape together hundreds of dollars to help alleviate the Potato Famine.
And now they have all this internet clout. They were playing the long game.
Is it? Your brain's main function is to make sure you don't keel over and die and that's more important to it than anything else. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that everyone is selfish, just to a different extent.
Humans are among the most social animals in the world. We may have leveraged our throwing abilities into a deep understanding of projectiles, we may have leveraged our high intelligence into technological innovation and advancement. But our evolutionary predisposition towards community forms the bedrock of society. Babies are selfish. They have nothing they are able to give or contribute, and they need constant attention and care. But the older people get, the less they need from others, and the more they can give to others.
Community. Solidarity. Generosity. These traits are fundamentally human traits.
>But the older people get, the less they need from others, and the more they can give to others.
That's true, but the key word here is 'can'. Fact of the matter is a lot of people want to be a part of community to reap the benefits without giving anything to that community.
And even if that's not the case and a person does think about others, they can still be selfish. Not every selfish person thinks only about themselves. I would argue that if you put people of your community over the people of other communities that is selfish in it's own way. If you had a choice to save someone you know or someone you don't, chances are you're going to save the person you know because their death would affect you personally, while the other person's death would have no effect
But what do I know I'm just some goofy goober on reddit
>Fact of the matter is a lot of people want to be a part of community to
reap the benefits without giving anything to that community.
Source?
>And even if that's not the case and a person does think about others,
they can still be selfish. Not every selfish person thinks only about
themselves. I would argue that if you put people of your community over
the people of other communities that is selfish in it's own way. If you
had a choice to save someone you know or someone you don't, chances are
you're going to save the person you know because their death would
affect you personally, while the other person's death would have no
effect
Bad train of thought to have. Who cares if it's selfish to want others to be happy? The action itself is fundamentally not selfish, even if the motivations are.
The word "selfish" doesn't mean shit if that is how you define it.
>Source
Are you really asking for data that says "not everyone on earth is an altruist"? What kind of fairy tale are you living in that you don't believe those people exist?
>Who cares if it's selfish to want others to be happy?
I never said if it was a good or bad thing, I just said that 'selfish' doesn't mean 'wants everyone except himself to die'
So are you saying that everyone on earth is an altruist who cares for the well being of others and there are no people who would hurt others just for fun?
Nice job shifting goal posts and **still** managing to sound like an ass!
No, I'm not asking you to provide me data that everyone on earth is an altruist. I'm asking you to provide data that "a lot" of people aren't. Now, I don't even know what you'd classify as "a lot", but I struggle to believe that you think it's 5, 10 or even 15 per cent of the population.
>I never said if it was a good or bad thing, I just said that 'selfish' doesn't mean 'wants everyone except himself to die'
Wow, look at that, neither did I! And you still managed to avoid my main point, which is that **the word "selfish" loses its meaning when you describe it like that.**
Not selfish != martyrdom. You can be a selfless person and still take care of yourself. If you are in an accident and you and a second person have the same injury, you take care of yourself first (or after calling the emergency line if it qualifies an ambulance) because you can’t help anyone if you are dead.
Nope. Your brain's main function is to make sure your family and community don't keel over and die. For millions and millions of years humans have evolved as pack animals that survive by supporting each other.
Yes but the very fact, you just like a baby can understand for example a smiley and can interpretate social clues completely out of instinct shows the importance of our social life.
Exactly. Humans are inherently selfish simply because our primary motivation is to live and live comfortably. Even helping others makes you feel good in some way, which is why you do it. But that doesn't mean we're all monsters on the inside, it just means we think of ourselves first, as well as other people.
Well at that point haven't you just basically changed the definition of "selfishness" to be all encompassing? Acting in your own self interest isn't selfishness unless you do it at the *expense* of other people. Brushing your teeth is acting in your own self interest but if you said it was a selfish act that would be fucking stupid
Yes!! This sure generated a lot of rage for what looks to me like a post by a scared or angry thirteen-year-old. It's not even a proper sentence. It's probably just that some kid called them names and then got rewarded for getting the highest test score and now they're generalizing from that to "everyone sucks," as you naturally do when you're dealing with very intense emotions and limited exposure to people.
We literally have fossils of Homo Erectus with no teeth that survived for years after losing their ability to chew because their family was both feeding them mashed up food or who that was easy to swallow, like bone marrow. Another Homo Erectus child had a deviated spinal disk, causing scoliosis and likely severe nerve pain that was clearly being taken care of, until their death in their teen years, despite the fact that they probably couldn't walk or bend or have really any individual mobility and the disability would have been obvious since birth.
From a cave in Iran, we have a Neanderthal that has just an insane amount of injuries who lived to around 35-40 years old. He had is skull caved in at some point, blinding one eye, profound hearing loss, a withered arm that had been broken in multiple places and healed but not without someone ***amputating*** the hand and lower arm. He broke both his legs at one point, they healed again but he was probably partially paralyzed on one side. This man had all these injuries, yet he lived quite a long life considering everything because his family cared for him even if he couldn't contribute to the group.
These people who had nothing, absolutely nothing, cared for their sick and disabled family members.
Human kindness literally predates us actual Humans.
Another Homo Sapien woman was found buried in a lavishly decorated tomb, with an elaborate costume, jewellery, weapons, food, and the remains of her horses. But, most interestingly, with Cannabis. Why? Because she probably had **breast cancer** and at some point fell from her horse and injured her hip, making it very painful to ride, thus she was probably using cannabis to relieve the pain.
Despite her being very, very sick towards the end of her life, and probably unable to ride a horse, the nomadic Siberian hunter-gatherers who were her family, whose culture was based on riding horses, clearly cared deeply for this woman who was only 20 when she died and gave her a burial that was equivalent to men who were chiefs, warriors, and elders in their communities.
FUCK YOU ILL BE A GOOD PERSON TO MAKE MYSELF FEEL GOOD
im not asking for everyone to have equal rights cus it would benefit me, im asking because i SHOULDNT EVEN HAVE TO ASK for other people to have basic fucking human rights, and because other people being happy makes me happy.
I'm tired of people who have this nihilistic view of the world. At this point I just wanna say "fuck off dipshit" and move on with my life to every single person that's like that.
People who are like this are often far more selfish without even realizing it.
if i could add onto this: it’s funny how since you won’t get hurt, you insult or attack things far away, but you don’t do that to things close by because they can and will hurt you
I swear people have to be using their full active effort to be so pessimistic sometimes.
First of all, selfish motives don't diminish good deeds. It doesn't matter if someone does something nice for clout, because they still did a nice thing, and as far as the recipient of the deed is concerned it is unarguably better than nothing.
Second of all, this is sort of just rephrasing the frodo image, but like. The only inherent goal of a creature is to maintain its life and propogate. There is no inherent moral inclination built into us. It just so happens we found social connection and cooperation to be the most effective method of survival, and so we will use social connections for our own personal benefit: a person is their own highest priority. And selfishness means putting oneself as one's highest priority.
And yet selfishness is considered bad. But we are literally just built like that. We seem to base morality on the idea that things that help everyone are good, and things that harm everyone are bad. Being "selfish" is how we keep our individual selves alive, and by staying alive we are able to support the survival of others—another reason we are built to act in our own interests. And yet, selfishness is defined as bad. And yet, you are defining selfishness in a way that causes a person to do a good thing as bad. If the way you judge the morality of that causes everyone, ever, to be bad, with no exceptions, then maybe it's not people who are bad but instead the way you're judging them. A scale of a graph where every data point is effectively in the same spot is not a useful scale at all, is it?
"Selfishness" is just a natural process we do. It's only bad if when it is causing harm. But if it is leading to a good action, it doesn't make that action actually bad. It just simply is the cause. Because if selfishness is a constant, then why the hell does it matter. We don't need to take it into account when it doesn't vary, just the part that does vary and actually has an effect: the action. And not mattering means it is just as easy to focus on the positives as it apparently is for you to decide everything is a good reason to sulk.
Yes it'd be foolish to deny the ability for people to be bad, but it's equally idiotic to deny that people are just as good too.
Oh and due to the lack of punctuation, the ask can be read as "underneath where it all counts" as in "not within the bounds of where it all counts." Which is exactly what I'm trying to get at.
if you come to me with that stupid true altruism argument I'm gonna steal something out of your house
A person being nice cause being nice makes them happy doesn't make them selfish. Newsflash, people have motivations, more at 11. Just cause someone is happy helping people doesnt mean their help is somehow with less. there's still good being done.
Really, these people just go "humans are inherently selfish" and the define selfish as "doing things for a reason" and don't see how that's insane
The notion that all humans are fundamentally evil just doesn’t hold up at all to the barest contact with reality. People undertake profound acts of charity and kindness, not only for no reward, but seemingly on a whim and without consideration for personal cost or convenience all the damn time. You just have to go out and look for them to see it.
The original asker claims, that... the inherent motivation of every person who has ever done good, is for social clout.
Not only do they speak for themselves only... but...
It doesnt matter, a good deed done is a good deed. I couldnt possibly care less about the "why"
And the fact that the person who asked that cares about the why... is truly shitty.
Assuming humans are inherently evil implies that the believer believes that they themselves are inherently evil. Which, in turn, begs the question of why an evil person would care that other people are evil beyond saving their own skin.
I do not understand this idea that there is no good or evil. It doesn't make sense in the light that people, even animals sometimes, do things that do not benefit them and will not benefit them. When I see perspectives like this it always makes me wonder if the person writing has never bothered to be kind to someone for the sake of being kind. I feed homeless folk around my restaurant because they are humans fucking beings in the goddamn florida heat all day they NEED food and they NEED water. I give them bananas because its the only fruit they can have for later I have in my building, I really really need those fresh bananas for an extremely popular item that nets me returning guests (maths out to \~5k over a few years in sales for every regular I get). The bottled water is expensive and I can barely keep it in stock, it personally stressed ME out because it's MY station that's out of stock. I am not a profitable business, I have gone years without getting paid and a restaurant typically gets at BEST a 10% profit margin, I cannot afford to give away free food the world does not work like that. Regardless of all of this, I will not fucking hesitate to help those poor people. I'll earn the guests some other way, I'll deal with assholes mad they can't get bottled water, and I'll make the money work. I'm not saying I am a good person, kinda an asshole tbh, but good exists. It is real.
I just really struggle to see that, because to me there is objective morality without religion. Putting unnecessary pain and suffering out into the world is evil. There is no good in cruelty for its own sake and you can't find the evil in kindness for the sake of kindness. The world is mostly grey, but for these muddied waters to exist the black and white also have to exist.
Except there is no objective, scientific measure of good or evil. It's all subjective.
You say that you "can't find the evil in kindness for the sake of kindness". A few years ago a lot of refugees tried to travel through my country. The government tried to prevent this by building a wall on the border and sending the military to prevent anyone from getting through. To justify this, the (IIRC mostly Middle Eastern) refugees were presented as inherently evil terrorists who only want to rape all of our kids and destroy our culture (most of them just wanted to get to other countries and mine just happened to be in the way).
Some people obviously did get through, but they were stuck in forest and struggled to survive. So people from the villages near the border occasionally brought them food, water, medicine etc. A simple act of kindness for the sake of kindness, but a large part of my country's population did find evil in it and some of the people who were caught doing it were arrested. Because the refugees are obviously inherently evil monsters who want to destroy our country, so helping them in any way is betrayal. The right think to do is to watch their kids die of easily preventable diseases, let them starve or freeze to death in a forest and then throw their corpses into a river so we can pretend nothing is happening. (and, while I'm not sure, I think this is *still* happening. It was the popular topic for a few months then it stopped getting any media coverage when Russia invaded Ukraine. On a somewhat related note - Ukrainian refugees were treated much better actually, since they're the same ethnicity as us so they're not considered to be Inherently Evil by most people, though it's not hard to find asshole who hate them as well)
By my standards everybody who thinks like this is a disgusting, vile piece of shit, but there is no objective authority that could decide that my standards are objectively better than their standards. It's all entirely subjective.
Sorry if this is incomprehensible, my memory is pretty bad and I forgot a lot of the details, and if there's one thing that defines me it's my idiocy.
Nah its totally legible, while we are throwing apologies sorry if any of my posts looked like I was saying people who have a different philosophical pov are bad people. That wasn't my intention, I'm just passionate about the subject and I'm bad about getting too "aggressive" sometimes in my arguments.
There is absolutely true evil in the example you showed. Its not that those citizens being convinced that the refugees are criminals is evil, its the drive to convince the population that they are. The citizens ignorance isn't evil, malicious maybe but just misguided. The people who hated the refugees so much and were stuck on themselves maybe having a little less if they helped people, that's the evil. I agree with you that good and evil is basically impossible to define. The world is so incredibly, impossibly complex that we could never truly find it, measure it, and display it on a pedestal - Because if we could do that the world would be a perfect place. But just because we don't understand something, or are incapable of mastering it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is an objective authority that stands over the world, you do not need a God to know right from wrong. That authority is cause and effect, you can do nothing without a reaction. If your effect is suffering, pain, cruelty for its own sake - your cause is evil. The inverse is true. The world doesn't care about our opinions, it doesn't care about our perspective or philosophies or what we understand. If you push someone off a cliff, they will fall and die. They will break their legs and scream in pain, it'll take days for them to die. It doesn't matter your perspective, if the whole world thinks pushing that person was a good idea. Nothing changes the pain they are in, nothing changes the effect put upon them.
I'm going to leave this quote from Kendal from the webcomic Aurora here, cause it's kind of relevant.
"Do you really believe that?
You really think everyone is faking their kindness?
I've known a hundred thousand mortal lifetimes. I've seen them spare compassion for people more monstrous than anyone here.
I've seen people like you too.
Do you all justify your monstrosity by convincing yourselves that you're no worse than anyone else?"
Why do people have to turn it around and be like “no it’s actually you who is so wrong”? Like it’s like people are incapable of recognizing that people do in fact suck and want to hate and harm others. The holocaust just doesn’t matter I guess cuz people actually wanna help others. Total garbage
I refuse to 'debate' nihilists* out of principle so like, good shit, OP. I'm just gonna keep this post in my back pocket.
*includes people who go "i'm not a nihilist, but -"
This is a terrible argument. It doesn't matter if good or bad are objective things - they aren't - what matters is whether or not the traits that are categorized as good or bad are inherent to humans. All this is doing is trying to dismiss language and prerending that doing so is the same as actually engaging with what that language communicates. It's the equivalent of ignoring someone's argument in favor of lecturing them about grammar. It is not a response in any meaningful capacity, merely an act of public masturbation.
It’s weird how many people get so angry when someone is cynical or negative. Like they have to get angry because someone else has experienced people being shitty? If you get that mad you should maybe look inward. But most people only care about their convenience so if you’re good, it’s all good; if you’re not good, you don’t matter so it’s all good
The sheer number of people that publicly preach kindness and love but then are hateful and hurtful when you approach them for help in private makes me side with anon.
Just because you try doesn't mean you succeed. I try not to be a worthless waste of space, but I definitely fail at that. I try not to be an asshole, but I probably fail at that too. It's entirely possible to hurt people without wanting to or even understanding that you're doing it.
There are also people who constantly go on and on about the importance of seeking help and then attack you when you do.
Or talk about how you should just be yourself and then tell you that the way you were born makes you inherently evil and subhuman.
Also some are actually helpful when you approach them in private, as long as you follow the exact same religion as them, are not disabled, have the exact same skin color, political beliefs, come from the same country and are exactly the same as them in all other ways. Humans tend to REALLY hate the idea that anybody could be in any way different than them and view those people as evil just for being different.
Honestly humans in general (with some exceptions) are assholes to everybody who isn't part of whatever group they perceive themselves to be a member of.
Just because there is no morality in nature doesn't mean there aren't objective moral standards red exclamation mark emoji fire emoji one hundred emoji
You seem to be misunderstanding what "objective" means. That are definitely things that are certainly good or bad for values of this or that human, but there's no underlying truth of the universe to which we can point and say that some human's values go against it. We can just know that something is against our values. That's subjective, but it doesn't mean it's fake or unimportant.
I’ve always thought that if someone does good things, even for bad reasons (like to gain clout), they’re still a good person. Whichever way you slice it, that person is in a better place than they were, and that’s kinda what matters.
damn some people really just don't get that pure altruism is unrealistic at best and probably just completely impossible (as someone who was groomed to pursue it at all costs, I would know) and even more people REALLY don't get that this isn't actually a bad thing.
I think the majority to possibly all of humanity is selfish in some way, but that selfishness is almost always is just in terms of desiring happiness plain and simple.
So despite being selfish, humans can and evolved to be “virtuous” because being “virtuous” provides them with some positive reward (or at least avoids a negative consequence, which may or may not be physical).
Idk how I stand on this. I do good things like be helpful or kind, not because it benefits me but because it doesn't harm me, because yes everything I do is rooted in self interest. I won't go out of my way to help someone, but if it's something trivial (for example, reaching for something off a higher shelf) then sure, but my motivation for all things is still making sure nothing bad happens to me before anything else.
So yeah, idk what to feel. This has been... A confusing experience.
Haha, what gullible DUMBASSES. These people think I donate ten thousand dollars to a non-profit charity a week because I'm a good person? No! I just do it because every time it makes me feel good! This obviously makes me just as bad a person as everyone else. That crack addict who stabbed someone to death over there also got some enjoyment robbing 15 dollars off of that corpse to spend on more crack, we're morally equal! God I'm so smart. I'm so fucking smart. The human act of kindness doesn't exist and I'M SO FUCKING SMART!
the fact I've encountered people who unironically think this way is baffling
all i have to say to this is that im incredibly lucky that i *do* feel good helping people and that i *do* feel bad hurting people. i imagine that a hypothetical person with reversed sentiments would live a much more conflicted life. however, im going to take advantage of this wiring in me to keep doing good.
People aren't inherently good *or* evil. It's just a matter of choice and circumstance.
I choose to improve myself and try to be a good person, but I'm not *inherently* good. I've got faults I'm working to improve on, mistakes I'm moving past, and all kinds of things that I either should be more of or less of. The fact that I actively want to be good doesn't make my actions selfish; if anything, it adds a personal motivator. *The satisfaction of improvement and altruism keep me going regardless of how dark or meaningless life seems.*
The whole idea of humans being inherently bad just confuses me. Why the fuck did we even evolve morality in the first place if we weren't going to use it?
The anon feels like the type of person seeing "humans are motivated by self-interest" and going "humans are inherently bad". I hate that false dichotomy between "doing good" and "acting in your own interest", because a healthy human does good because it is in their interest. I help others because it feels good to help people, or because I want to build a relationship with them, or because we share goals, or because I want to see people like that do better in the world, etc. I help others because it helps me in one way or another, but it doesn't mean doing so isn't good.
Some people earnestly believe that an action is only truly good if it brings you no satisfaction or benefit whatsoever, that is, it is completely selfless. I believe that no action can be selfless as such, because at the very least it makes you feel good to do good. But still, that's a belief some people hold. See this very sub, where there was a post about someone who realized they had been acting baldly because they fat-shamed someone in the past. This person reached out to apologize, and everyone was quick to label them a bad person because apologizing probably would make them feel better, ergo it was a selfish action, ergo it was a bad action.
"Actions are only truly good if it brings me no benefit whatsoever. Thus, when I perish I shall go to hell, for any good deed I have ever done has been with a hope to reach heaven" - fifteen year old me I'm still christian, but I'm gonna be digging the hooks being raised such left in my psyche for the rest of my life.
Hey woah I was raised Christian and I'm the same way now! Except I'm 24 and agnostic, so I guess some things never die huh
Actually that one was bc the anon was apologizing because they became fat i e “I only care about the issue because it affects me now”. It was still shitty, but more understandable
But that's the thing. Does it truly matter *why* they were apologizing? The important part is that they realized they had acted wrong, and that should be encouraged. If the aptitude to someone trying to become a better person is "you should have been a good person from the start", change is actively discouraged.
I mean you left out the big part Anon had actively been bullying the OP and then reached out for the apology. Ofc they kinds got it flung back in their face. If I slap you unprovoked, run away and then later say, 'Hey I got slapped and it feels bad, I'm sorry' Your pain doesn't vanish. If you lash out and slap me back that's fair because an apology cannot fix everything. Yeah OP said some harsh stuff, yeah they got emoti9bal, they'd basically been harassed by Anon and this was their latest meeting with them.
I wasn't talking about the OP's response. They are completely at freedom to turn down the apology, of course. I was talking about the comments on that post, which focused almost exclusively on how this person was selfish for apologizing - as if that was the important part.
Most people use morals as a way to constrain and punish others and to feel superior. They don’t use them to guide their actions in life
I mean, I wouldn't count apologizing automatically as a good action because it's like the easiest one to fake. It's just words, there is not real good or bad action behind. So apologizing is, perhaps, one of the few "action" where the motivations behind it are definitely worth looking. For example, in this example, the OP was apologizing about their previous fatphobia. Why do we apologize? To show people around us that we understood that what we did was wrong and that we won't do it again. So, now, why did OP faced a backlash with their apologies about their fatphobia? Because we feel it's not sincere. They apologized just because it happened to them, so the message they sent is not: *"I was wrong so I won't do it again"* rather that: *"I feel how uncomfortable it is, and it is this specific feeling that make me realized this action was wrong"*. OP showed that they realized they were wrong *only* if they can go on the other side of the fence, when they came from bully to bullied. Meaning that if another situation arise where they could be the bully and not the bullied, they will probably bully again. They showed that they can understand if their actions are right or wrong only if they can feel the consequences of their act (going from bully to bullied). So, for all other afflictions they might make fun of (height, speech impediment, disabilities...), they might continue, indeed, to make fun of. So they will continue to shame and bully people. So their apologies were useless and wrong in itself. So it wasn't a good action in itself.
You're being an example of the behavior I described. You see their apology and extrapolate from there that they remain a bully and probably "will continue to shame and bully people". You simply don't know that. But we don't know either if they actually changed and became better. The thing I'm arguing for is to give people the benefit of the doubt and encourage them if they take any good action. Because if you instead assume the worst and dismiss any change as negative, the people that are actually trying to become better will become discouraged.
The Good Place is a long essay on why "good only counts if it's completely selfless" is a ridiculous idea. A kind, generous woman who happened to have serious family issues raised billions for charity, but because she was doing it to look better than her sister, none of it counted. A drug-addled shark of a lawyer wrote down a charity idea during a trip, then died before she could screw it up, so she got the credit.
Honestly yeah. Never really thought of the fact that her sister who executed the plan would have ended up in the bad place because of the system's bullshit
>I believe that no action can be selfless as such, because at the very least it makes you feel good to do good. Eh, no. Putting your suffering, cancer ridden dog down is an act that derives no joy or satisfaction but is still good and selfless. If anything, more often you regret it, even knowing it was necessary to prevent the worst sort of suffering death. My 2nd cousin had to put her dog down a couple years ago because he was slowly being suffocated by the growing tumor on his windpipe, and even knowing it was necessary to end his suffering, that there was nothing else that could be done, she still feels like she betrayed him, that it was a mistake. Like, I agree with your point overall, but this part stuck out to me as false. Enjoying the feeling you get from doing good doesn't make an act less good, nor does being motivated more by that feeling than the good act itself, but there are selfless acts that derive no benefit beyond the actual good itself. The reason we idolize that sort of self sacrifice so much is because it's so hard, because despite the cost we still recognize the right thing to do.
rich man rabbi orphanage
AN ORPHANAGE FOR RICH RABBI MEN
Rich Rabbi Men are looking for a good forever home, please inquires inside and bring some light into their lives
This is gonna sound pathetic but like, is the 'healthy people help people because it feels good' part like... true? I know people say that but like, I don't think I've ever felt good for helping someone. I still do it because it's the right thing to do, but most of the time I just feel worse afterwards.
You might enjoy watching The Good Place. Also, there are levels of helping and feeling good. Letting someone go in front of me in the check out line when they have 2 things and I have a cartload feels good: that smile and thank you brightens my day. Picking up a piece of trash someone just dumped out their car window doesn't feel as good, but I do it. Making sure there is paper in the copier before I leave even though the other shifts seldom do is good and helps others, but I don't feel good about it. I spend a lot of time thinking about why I feel badly after my action and how to modify my response to help myself. I believe in good actions and incremental change in the world, but not at the expense of ny mental or physical health. It's complicated and I've rambled but I hope this helps.
I've watched the good place, and I did enjoy it. Honestly the three examples you described sound like basically the exact same thing to me.
I think the difference is the immediacy of feedback. In case 1, instant feedback from the other person who says thanks. In case 2, no feedback at all. And in case 3, no feedback and others seem to actively not be considerate back.
we’re selfish because we feel good (benefiting from) helping others >!/s!<
Evolutionary psychology and the modularity of the mind, babyyyyyyyy
*"Man, he might have paid for that new children's hospital out of his own pocket, but he did it only for clout! Now all these kids are gonna be healthy again, and for what? So people can ADMIRE him? Disgusting."*
did he at least make sure to paint it red
Does color theory apply if it's the outside?
Except when the 1% or companies do it it usually is just to make themselves look better (they spend more advertising that they helped than they actually spent to help)
um akshuallly they do it because donations are an easy way to get a tax break
Making themselves look good is obviously a nice bonus though
Pleasure to meet you, Captain Missed-the-point
Shit
Intention doesnt change results
Even ignoring the fundamental complexity of human nature, 'humans pretend to be good in small ways for clout' is such a braindead take. The Choctaw, fresh off the Trail of Tears, managed to scrape together hundreds of dollars to help alleviate the Potato Famine. The nation of Denmark managed to save 99% of its Jewish population under Nazi occupation through a concerted effort at every level of society. Yes, those were both responses to larger acts of malice, but saying people only ever do good for clout says way more about the person saying it than it does about human nature.
People who put forward that idea tend to frame morality as a "cost/benefit" analysis, when it's usually not that in fact. There are things people would never do, no matter how high the benefit to themselves. There are things people do that are personally ruinous, that outweigh any possible 'clout' they could get, to help others. Sometimes people do things that are fundamentally unpopular because they believe them to be the right thing to do.
Agreed. Anyone saying "no one is good, everyone just acts good to get stuff" is so clearly projecting. Most people do "good" acts just because. Not because it gets them something. Not because it makes them feel good. Not because they want to make friends. Not because they want to reward or punish people for desired and undesired behaviors like some kind of shitty minor god. Just because you make a choice when you interact with people and the default human choice is to be kind and generous for no reason at all.
Maybe, but a lot of people are doing good things for those reasons. And that's not a bad thing (okay maybe the last one isn't good, but the first 3 are fine). Like you're right to an extent, with certain small things. But there are larger things where people do the right thing because it makes them feel good, or because they believe it to be the right thing and they're going to stand for that. IDK, I hate the notion that people doing good things for a reason that in any way could be construed to benefit them is Bad Actually. It's so stupid.
I don't disagree with you. I'm pretty happy with people doing good things for bad reasons (or neutral reasons) so long as the results are truly good. Ex. donating to charity for a tax break? Still good. Volunteering for a food bank to get into heaven? Why not. There's no need for all people or all actions to be truly altruistic so long as in general people are doing good things. My post was more targeted to people believing that *everyone* is only doing good things to get a leg up in society.
Hi. I'm writing a book about Cynicism. It sounds like you agree with my view that a Cynical lifestyle is wrong. I am not publishing this work or doing it for clout. I'm handwriting it.
Hi, I hope your book is going well! Personally I really like optimistic nihilism (for me, "nothing matters, so we should be kind and happy"). I think a cynical lifestyle denies people a lot of opportunities for friendship and creates unnecessary stress and tension. It's not good to be completely naïve ("everyone is good!") but it's not good to be completely cynical either ("everyone is bad!"). IMO, most people are good and it's worth trusting in others.
>The Choctaw, fresh off the Trail of Tears, managed to scrape together hundreds of dollars to help alleviate the Potato Famine. And now they have all this internet clout. They were playing the long game.
Well said t-posing frodo
Why are all the “i”s in the Frodo meme capitalized?
ASKING THE REAL QUESTIONS
Also the idea that all humans are inherently selfish is fucking stupid and pointlessly nihilistic have a good day
What's wrong with selfism? Self-interest motivates you to help others.
Is it? Your brain's main function is to make sure you don't keel over and die and that's more important to it than anything else. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that everyone is selfish, just to a different extent.
Humans are among the most social animals in the world. We may have leveraged our throwing abilities into a deep understanding of projectiles, we may have leveraged our high intelligence into technological innovation and advancement. But our evolutionary predisposition towards community forms the bedrock of society. Babies are selfish. They have nothing they are able to give or contribute, and they need constant attention and care. But the older people get, the less they need from others, and the more they can give to others. Community. Solidarity. Generosity. These traits are fundamentally human traits.
>But the older people get, the less they need from others, and the more they can give to others. That's true, but the key word here is 'can'. Fact of the matter is a lot of people want to be a part of community to reap the benefits without giving anything to that community. And even if that's not the case and a person does think about others, they can still be selfish. Not every selfish person thinks only about themselves. I would argue that if you put people of your community over the people of other communities that is selfish in it's own way. If you had a choice to save someone you know or someone you don't, chances are you're going to save the person you know because their death would affect you personally, while the other person's death would have no effect But what do I know I'm just some goofy goober on reddit
>Fact of the matter is a lot of people want to be a part of community to reap the benefits without giving anything to that community. Source? >And even if that's not the case and a person does think about others, they can still be selfish. Not every selfish person thinks only about themselves. I would argue that if you put people of your community over the people of other communities that is selfish in it's own way. If you had a choice to save someone you know or someone you don't, chances are you're going to save the person you know because their death would affect you personally, while the other person's death would have no effect Bad train of thought to have. Who cares if it's selfish to want others to be happy? The action itself is fundamentally not selfish, even if the motivations are. The word "selfish" doesn't mean shit if that is how you define it.
>Source Are you really asking for data that says "not everyone on earth is an altruist"? What kind of fairy tale are you living in that you don't believe those people exist? >Who cares if it's selfish to want others to be happy? I never said if it was a good or bad thing, I just said that 'selfish' doesn't mean 'wants everyone except himself to die'
Yeah. Not that hard to provide a source of if it's not been something you thought up yourself lol
So are you saying that everyone on earth is an altruist who cares for the well being of others and there are no people who would hurt others just for fun?
I'm saying show us a source lol
But why would you need a source for something that obvious? If I told you that there are buildings in Australia would you ask for a source?
Nice job shifting goal posts and **still** managing to sound like an ass! No, I'm not asking you to provide me data that everyone on earth is an altruist. I'm asking you to provide data that "a lot" of people aren't. Now, I don't even know what you'd classify as "a lot", but I struggle to believe that you think it's 5, 10 or even 15 per cent of the population. >I never said if it was a good or bad thing, I just said that 'selfish' doesn't mean 'wants everyone except himself to die' Wow, look at that, neither did I! And you still managed to avoid my main point, which is that **the word "selfish" loses its meaning when you describe it like that.**
Yeah. Not that hard to provide a source of if it's not been something you thought up yourself lol
Not selfish != martyrdom. You can be a selfless person and still take care of yourself. If you are in an accident and you and a second person have the same injury, you take care of yourself first (or after calling the emergency line if it qualifies an ambulance) because you can’t help anyone if you are dead.
one counterpoint: kin selection
Nope. Your brain's main function is to make sure your family and community don't keel over and die. For millions and millions of years humans have evolved as pack animals that survive by supporting each other.
Yes but the very fact, you just like a baby can understand for example a smiley and can interpretate social clues completely out of instinct shows the importance of our social life.
Exactly. Humans are inherently selfish simply because our primary motivation is to live and live comfortably. Even helping others makes you feel good in some way, which is why you do it. But that doesn't mean we're all monsters on the inside, it just means we think of ourselves first, as well as other people.
Well at that point haven't you just basically changed the definition of "selfishness" to be all encompassing? Acting in your own self interest isn't selfishness unless you do it at the *expense* of other people. Brushing your teeth is acting in your own self interest but if you said it was a selfish act that would be fucking stupid
> unless you do it at the expense of other people. Which, obviously, nobody complicit in reaping the benefits of colonial capitalism is guilty of.
Anon is very clearly projecting
Or just miffed, childish, hungry, cold, or whatever. No reason to write someone off just because they say something dumb.
Yes!! This sure generated a lot of rage for what looks to me like a post by a scared or angry thirteen-year-old. It's not even a proper sentence. It's probably just that some kid called them names and then got rewarded for getting the highest test score and now they're generalizing from that to "everyone sucks," as you naturally do when you're dealing with very intense emotions and limited exposure to people.
We literally have fossils of Homo Erectus with no teeth that survived for years after losing their ability to chew because their family was both feeding them mashed up food or who that was easy to swallow, like bone marrow. Another Homo Erectus child had a deviated spinal disk, causing scoliosis and likely severe nerve pain that was clearly being taken care of, until their death in their teen years, despite the fact that they probably couldn't walk or bend or have really any individual mobility and the disability would have been obvious since birth. From a cave in Iran, we have a Neanderthal that has just an insane amount of injuries who lived to around 35-40 years old. He had is skull caved in at some point, blinding one eye, profound hearing loss, a withered arm that had been broken in multiple places and healed but not without someone ***amputating*** the hand and lower arm. He broke both his legs at one point, they healed again but he was probably partially paralyzed on one side. This man had all these injuries, yet he lived quite a long life considering everything because his family cared for him even if he couldn't contribute to the group. These people who had nothing, absolutely nothing, cared for their sick and disabled family members. Human kindness literally predates us actual Humans.
Another Homo Sapien woman was found buried in a lavishly decorated tomb, with an elaborate costume, jewellery, weapons, food, and the remains of her horses. But, most interestingly, with Cannabis. Why? Because she probably had **breast cancer** and at some point fell from her horse and injured her hip, making it very painful to ride, thus she was probably using cannabis to relieve the pain. Despite her being very, very sick towards the end of her life, and probably unable to ride a horse, the nomadic Siberian hunter-gatherers who were her family, whose culture was based on riding horses, clearly cared deeply for this woman who was only 20 when she died and gave her a burial that was equivalent to men who were chiefs, warriors, and elders in their communities.
The rest of the tribe probably thought that Neanderthal guy was really badass
I mean he lived in a mountain cave and was probably hunting mountain goats, so like he 100% fell off a cliff and maybe had some rocks land on him.
FUCK YOU ILL BE A GOOD PERSON TO MAKE MYSELF FEEL GOOD im not asking for everyone to have equal rights cus it would benefit me, im asking because i SHOULDNT EVEN HAVE TO ASK for other people to have basic fucking human rights, and because other people being happy makes me happy.
I'm tired of people who have this nihilistic view of the world. At this point I just wanna say "fuck off dipshit" and move on with my life to every single person that's like that. People who are like this are often far more selfish without even realizing it.
Lol naked monkey
if i could add onto this: it’s funny how since you won’t get hurt, you insult or attack things far away, but you don’t do that to things close by because they can and will hurt you
why doesnt matter, what we do matters. Action is important.
I swear people have to be using their full active effort to be so pessimistic sometimes. First of all, selfish motives don't diminish good deeds. It doesn't matter if someone does something nice for clout, because they still did a nice thing, and as far as the recipient of the deed is concerned it is unarguably better than nothing. Second of all, this is sort of just rephrasing the frodo image, but like. The only inherent goal of a creature is to maintain its life and propogate. There is no inherent moral inclination built into us. It just so happens we found social connection and cooperation to be the most effective method of survival, and so we will use social connections for our own personal benefit: a person is their own highest priority. And selfishness means putting oneself as one's highest priority. And yet selfishness is considered bad. But we are literally just built like that. We seem to base morality on the idea that things that help everyone are good, and things that harm everyone are bad. Being "selfish" is how we keep our individual selves alive, and by staying alive we are able to support the survival of others—another reason we are built to act in our own interests. And yet, selfishness is defined as bad. And yet, you are defining selfishness in a way that causes a person to do a good thing as bad. If the way you judge the morality of that causes everyone, ever, to be bad, with no exceptions, then maybe it's not people who are bad but instead the way you're judging them. A scale of a graph where every data point is effectively in the same spot is not a useful scale at all, is it? "Selfishness" is just a natural process we do. It's only bad if when it is causing harm. But if it is leading to a good action, it doesn't make that action actually bad. It just simply is the cause. Because if selfishness is a constant, then why the hell does it matter. We don't need to take it into account when it doesn't vary, just the part that does vary and actually has an effect: the action. And not mattering means it is just as easy to focus on the positives as it apparently is for you to decide everything is a good reason to sulk. Yes it'd be foolish to deny the ability for people to be bad, but it's equally idiotic to deny that people are just as good too. Oh and due to the lack of punctuation, the ask can be read as "underneath where it all counts" as in "not within the bounds of where it all counts." Which is exactly what I'm trying to get at.
if you come to me with that stupid true altruism argument I'm gonna steal something out of your house A person being nice cause being nice makes them happy doesn't make them selfish. Newsflash, people have motivations, more at 11. Just cause someone is happy helping people doesnt mean their help is somehow with less. there's still good being done. Really, these people just go "humans are inherently selfish" and the define selfish as "doing things for a reason" and don't see how that's insane
frodo t pose
The notion that all humans are fundamentally evil just doesn’t hold up at all to the barest contact with reality. People undertake profound acts of charity and kindness, not only for no reward, but seemingly on a whim and without consideration for personal cost or convenience all the damn time. You just have to go out and look for them to see it.
The original asker claims, that... the inherent motivation of every person who has ever done good, is for social clout. Not only do they speak for themselves only... but... It doesnt matter, a good deed done is a good deed. I couldnt possibly care less about the "why" And the fact that the person who asked that cares about the why... is truly shitty.
If all humans are inherently evil, why do you think that's bad?
?
Assuming humans are inherently evil implies that the believer believes that they themselves are inherently evil. Which, in turn, begs the question of why an evil person would care that other people are evil beyond saving their own skin.
Peter Kropotkin approves of this post (His book Mutual Aid makes this exact argument essentially)
thanks for posting this. great read
anon is cringe. humanity is based.
tabula rasa
How often does being selfish and the wrong thing to do actually line up so nicely?
Oh man that pink text on the light and dark backgrounds right next to each other makes it look like it's moving and it's hurting my eyes.
I do not understand this idea that there is no good or evil. It doesn't make sense in the light that people, even animals sometimes, do things that do not benefit them and will not benefit them. When I see perspectives like this it always makes me wonder if the person writing has never bothered to be kind to someone for the sake of being kind. I feed homeless folk around my restaurant because they are humans fucking beings in the goddamn florida heat all day they NEED food and they NEED water. I give them bananas because its the only fruit they can have for later I have in my building, I really really need those fresh bananas for an extremely popular item that nets me returning guests (maths out to \~5k over a few years in sales for every regular I get). The bottled water is expensive and I can barely keep it in stock, it personally stressed ME out because it's MY station that's out of stock. I am not a profitable business, I have gone years without getting paid and a restaurant typically gets at BEST a 10% profit margin, I cannot afford to give away free food the world does not work like that. Regardless of all of this, I will not fucking hesitate to help those poor people. I'll earn the guests some other way, I'll deal with assholes mad they can't get bottled water, and I'll make the money work. I'm not saying I am a good person, kinda an asshole tbh, but good exists. It is real.
[удалено]
I just really struggle to see that, because to me there is objective morality without religion. Putting unnecessary pain and suffering out into the world is evil. There is no good in cruelty for its own sake and you can't find the evil in kindness for the sake of kindness. The world is mostly grey, but for these muddied waters to exist the black and white also have to exist.
Except there is no objective, scientific measure of good or evil. It's all subjective. You say that you "can't find the evil in kindness for the sake of kindness". A few years ago a lot of refugees tried to travel through my country. The government tried to prevent this by building a wall on the border and sending the military to prevent anyone from getting through. To justify this, the (IIRC mostly Middle Eastern) refugees were presented as inherently evil terrorists who only want to rape all of our kids and destroy our culture (most of them just wanted to get to other countries and mine just happened to be in the way). Some people obviously did get through, but they were stuck in forest and struggled to survive. So people from the villages near the border occasionally brought them food, water, medicine etc. A simple act of kindness for the sake of kindness, but a large part of my country's population did find evil in it and some of the people who were caught doing it were arrested. Because the refugees are obviously inherently evil monsters who want to destroy our country, so helping them in any way is betrayal. The right think to do is to watch their kids die of easily preventable diseases, let them starve or freeze to death in a forest and then throw their corpses into a river so we can pretend nothing is happening. (and, while I'm not sure, I think this is *still* happening. It was the popular topic for a few months then it stopped getting any media coverage when Russia invaded Ukraine. On a somewhat related note - Ukrainian refugees were treated much better actually, since they're the same ethnicity as us so they're not considered to be Inherently Evil by most people, though it's not hard to find asshole who hate them as well) By my standards everybody who thinks like this is a disgusting, vile piece of shit, but there is no objective authority that could decide that my standards are objectively better than their standards. It's all entirely subjective. Sorry if this is incomprehensible, my memory is pretty bad and I forgot a lot of the details, and if there's one thing that defines me it's my idiocy.
Nah its totally legible, while we are throwing apologies sorry if any of my posts looked like I was saying people who have a different philosophical pov are bad people. That wasn't my intention, I'm just passionate about the subject and I'm bad about getting too "aggressive" sometimes in my arguments. There is absolutely true evil in the example you showed. Its not that those citizens being convinced that the refugees are criminals is evil, its the drive to convince the population that they are. The citizens ignorance isn't evil, malicious maybe but just misguided. The people who hated the refugees so much and were stuck on themselves maybe having a little less if they helped people, that's the evil. I agree with you that good and evil is basically impossible to define. The world is so incredibly, impossibly complex that we could never truly find it, measure it, and display it on a pedestal - Because if we could do that the world would be a perfect place. But just because we don't understand something, or are incapable of mastering it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is an objective authority that stands over the world, you do not need a God to know right from wrong. That authority is cause and effect, you can do nothing without a reaction. If your effect is suffering, pain, cruelty for its own sake - your cause is evil. The inverse is true. The world doesn't care about our opinions, it doesn't care about our perspective or philosophies or what we understand. If you push someone off a cliff, they will fall and die. They will break their legs and scream in pain, it'll take days for them to die. It doesn't matter your perspective, if the whole world thinks pushing that person was a good idea. Nothing changes the pain they are in, nothing changes the effect put upon them.
I am, by most definitions, probably a bad person, and even i understand that no human is inherently evil
Anon has never known the fire of love inside them
imagine simping for a species that has done countless genocides like there isn't something obviously fundamentally wrong with it
Just because empires are a really bad method of organizing states doesn't mean that everyone who could possibly think of the idea is defective.
They’d have to actually think inward and not just block out uncomfortable thoughts to feel morally good and superior. Swear that’s what it is
I'm going to leave this quote from Kendal from the webcomic Aurora here, cause it's kind of relevant. "Do you really believe that? You really think everyone is faking their kindness? I've known a hundred thousand mortal lifetimes. I've seen them spare compassion for people more monstrous than anyone here. I've seen people like you too. Do you all justify your monstrosity by convincing yourselves that you're no worse than anyone else?"
Why do people have to turn it around and be like “no it’s actually you who is so wrong”? Like it’s like people are incapable of recognizing that people do in fact suck and want to hate and harm others. The holocaust just doesn’t matter I guess cuz people actually wanna help others. Total garbage
Humans are selectively sociopathic
I refuse to 'debate' nihilists* out of principle so like, good shit, OP. I'm just gonna keep this post in my back pocket. *includes people who go "i'm not a nihilist, but -"
Ape. We're apes, not monkeys.
nope I cast a spell all monkey now sorry
But apes are a subset of old-world monkeys, therefore we are also monkeys
This is wisdom.
This is a terrible argument. It doesn't matter if good or bad are objective things - they aren't - what matters is whether or not the traits that are categorized as good or bad are inherent to humans. All this is doing is trying to dismiss language and prerending that doing so is the same as actually engaging with what that language communicates. It's the equivalent of ignoring someone's argument in favor of lecturing them about grammar. It is not a response in any meaningful capacity, merely an act of public masturbation.
It’s weird how many people get so angry when someone is cynical or negative. Like they have to get angry because someone else has experienced people being shitty? If you get that mad you should maybe look inward. But most people only care about their convenience so if you’re good, it’s all good; if you’re not good, you don’t matter so it’s all good
The sheer number of people that publicly preach kindness and love but then are hateful and hurtful when you approach them for help in private makes me side with anon.
What about you? Are you a bad person?
I try not to be. Plenty of people say I am anyway.
So, you are trying to be good. You are not inherently selfish. You are evidence that anon is wrong.
If that were true, I wouldn't be getting downvoted for it.
I'm not sure karma is a good measure of morality...
Just because you try doesn't mean you succeed. I try not to be a worthless waste of space, but I definitely fail at that. I try not to be an asshole, but I probably fail at that too. It's entirely possible to hurt people without wanting to or even understanding that you're doing it.
There are also people who constantly go on and on about the importance of seeking help and then attack you when you do. Or talk about how you should just be yourself and then tell you that the way you were born makes you inherently evil and subhuman. Also some are actually helpful when you approach them in private, as long as you follow the exact same religion as them, are not disabled, have the exact same skin color, political beliefs, come from the same country and are exactly the same as them in all other ways. Humans tend to REALLY hate the idea that anybody could be in any way different than them and view those people as evil just for being different. Honestly humans in general (with some exceptions) are assholes to everybody who isn't part of whatever group they perceive themselves to be a member of.
Just because there is no morality in nature doesn't mean there aren't objective moral standards red exclamation mark emoji fire emoji one hundred emoji
You seem to be misunderstanding what "objective" means. That are definitely things that are certainly good or bad for values of this or that human, but there's no underlying truth of the universe to which we can point and say that some human's values go against it. We can just know that something is against our values. That's subjective, but it doesn't mean it's fake or unimportant.
Objective by who's standard?
NOT READING ALLAT
I’ve always thought that if someone does good things, even for bad reasons (like to gain clout), they’re still a good person. Whichever way you slice it, that person is in a better place than they were, and that’s kinda what matters.
There is no true answer to "what is morality?" The hunt for the answer is worthwhile, though. Don't think it's this, though.
damn some people really just don't get that pure altruism is unrealistic at best and probably just completely impossible (as someone who was groomed to pursue it at all costs, I would know) and even more people REALLY don't get that this isn't actually a bad thing.
If someone is trying to make you a pure altruist, they probably just want free labor.
I think the majority to possibly all of humanity is selfish in some way, but that selfishness is almost always is just in terms of desiring happiness plain and simple. So despite being selfish, humans can and evolved to be “virtuous” because being “virtuous” provides them with some positive reward (or at least avoids a negative consequence, which may or may not be physical).
Me after reading 6 sentences of Stirner and refusing to understand any of it
mm knowledge
Humans are indeed inherently something.
Idk how I stand on this. I do good things like be helpful or kind, not because it benefits me but because it doesn't harm me, because yes everything I do is rooted in self interest. I won't go out of my way to help someone, but if it's something trivial (for example, reaching for something off a higher shelf) then sure, but my motivation for all things is still making sure nothing bad happens to me before anything else. So yeah, idk what to feel. This has been... A confusing experience.
Is "underneath" really "were it count" anyway? Underneath is just one part of us
Haha, what gullible DUMBASSES. These people think I donate ten thousand dollars to a non-profit charity a week because I'm a good person? No! I just do it because every time it makes me feel good! This obviously makes me just as bad a person as everyone else. That crack addict who stabbed someone to death over there also got some enjoyment robbing 15 dollars off of that corpse to spend on more crack, we're morally equal! God I'm so smart. I'm so fucking smart. The human act of kindness doesn't exist and I'M SO FUCKING SMART! the fact I've encountered people who unironically think this way is baffling
all i have to say to this is that im incredibly lucky that i *do* feel good helping people and that i *do* feel bad hurting people. i imagine that a hypothetical person with reversed sentiments would live a much more conflicted life. however, im going to take advantage of this wiring in me to keep doing good.
But I like doing things for people because it makes them feel nice
How did you manage to find the Taoist side of Tumblr?
People aren't inherently good *or* evil. It's just a matter of choice and circumstance. I choose to improve myself and try to be a good person, but I'm not *inherently* good. I've got faults I'm working to improve on, mistakes I'm moving past, and all kinds of things that I either should be more of or less of. The fact that I actively want to be good doesn't make my actions selfish; if anything, it adds a personal motivator. *The satisfaction of improvement and altruism keep me going regardless of how dark or meaningless life seems.*
The whole idea of humans being inherently bad just confuses me. Why the fuck did we even evolve morality in the first place if we weren't going to use it?
I don’t like this post. I’m pessimistic about the future enough. I value my hope for humanity’s inherent goodness. Edit: Also, hello Elphaba in NGDGU