My response to discussion topic:
I used to believe that the only motive for action is ultimately a selfish motive. Everything we do, we do because we want to survive the best way we can. We learn how our actions affect the world around us, some learn better than others, and we constantly manipulate the world around us to achieve the results we want. For example, why would I obey the laws and follow rules, well...even as young babies we discover that there are norms and rules, and the consequences that follow. You can even think of gravity as a rule, a rule that has no moral attachment. "If I drop my toy it will fall to the floor." Then there are rules like "mommy will be angry if I make a mess." As we grow and learn more about the world and the other people in it we discover more rules and how to live with them succesfully.
So why are there philanthropists and acts of charity? Well, most of us know that when we are kind to others it makes us feel good, either about ourselves, or about the world. We also want to construct an image for others to see, we have a reputation to uphold. Why uphold a reputation? Because a reputation proves very useful in relationships.
What about love? If I give my unconditional love to another person it may seem like altruism, but really I know that it's always mutual. If I respect this person and care for them and meet their emotional needs I can expect to recieve their love and affection in return, that makes me feel good.
And when great sacrifices are made? When a person values someone to such an extent that he/she will sacrifice his/her life for that person, maybe this indicates that if he/she were to continue living without the other person he/she would be miserable.
Sometimes I think of it as a more complicated strategy for survival.
Another person in the same discussion thread wrote:
Compassion is an emotion--that's not up for debate, right? It responds too automatically to just be us thinking that, "well, if I help them, they'll help me later, plus that chick'll think I'm deep..."; it doesn't always go like that, so it's got to be built in. We thus associate it with selflessness in general, even though we aren't always selfless for the sake of compassion.
My response:
I'm not sure if I can agree yet, maybe because I see so much less compassion in the world sometimes than you're giving credit, but I would like to think that we all have a deeper instinctive care for the human race, and hopefully we do realize that we won't get anywhere if we have to kill off half the world to get there.
But, I don't think we're giving the selfish emotion enough credit. Being selfish, especially as a tool for survival, isn't shallow at all. I'm thinking for a way to illustrate this...
Before you bring a child into the world, why do you decide you are going to? I have not yet had this experience, so I tread cautiously, but is it because you have compassion for this unborn child, or because you feel somwhere inside you an obligation to keep the human race going?
I would think that this is a more selfish than selfless decision. If I am going to put my "self" in something more wholly than I have ever dedicated myself to anything else before, I am doing it for me, me and my partner. I would not do it for any other reason.
Besides, doesn't love for anything stem from selfish desire? I love a great many things, for me those things seem to affirm who I am, my existence, if you will.
And actually, now that I'm thinking on this I'm a bit confused by what you wrote Alun. How can we associate compassion with selflessness? Wherever passion is exerted there are always reasons of pure selfishness behind it.
Me ruminating, still in the same discussion thread:
I don't care if you live your life being the kindest person on the earth, I would agree with your behavior, and I would love to be your friend, but I can't quite have all the respect for you in the world if you're making choices because someone else told you to.
Now, I believe people do what they believe to be right, but then that means that theists believe that religion is good and truthfull, not on account of their own moral values, but because they believe in God's.
If this is true, it's not a very stable grounding for morality. It becomes a source for theists to justify their actions, and it's just plain...plain something...not good.
How can we learn to be better, more moral species if we are limited to following directions? (Isn't it obvious that God's directions have always been confusing and even misleading at times?)
/end 17 year old me.
God, I haven't changed very much at all. In fact my 17 year old self just persuaded me again to believing that "the only motive for action is ultimately a selfish motive."
On the one hand, this makes me proud of where I was at 17.
On the other hand, it scares me that I am not really much more advanced in my thinking than I was at 17. Makes me question the value of all my classes at university. Have they really helped me advance intellectually?
No comments:
Post a Comment