Why not be selfish?

[Ghost of a Rider]

This is largely aimed at people who either don't believe in an afterlife or at least don't believe in punishment/reward in the afterlife.
If you only get one shot at life, why care what people think of you when you're gone? Leaving a legacy of peace and kindness won't mean a jot to you if you cease to exist and will ultimately be forgotten by either the passage of time or the inevitable apocalyptic demise of our species.
Why not devote your life to yourself? Why not be utterly ruthless in the pursuit of power and wealth, look out only for yourself and your loved ones and let all others be damned? Why not strike a balance between self preservation and satisfying your desires and leave any concept of morality out of the equation?
Why care about any concept of honesty, honour or decency if it's ultimately futile? With no threat of punishment, no promise of reward and no material gain or loss after death, why not be selfish?

For those wondering, this isn't a smug "I'm a theist and thus morally superior" argument. I do my best to live the lifestyle I described. I just honestly don't understand why anybody would follow conventional notions of morality and decency when there is ultimately nothing to be gained from it. I don't get why people feel they should be "good".


Oh one more thing, I can completely understand staying within the law so as to avoid punishment and I'm not suggesting being obnoxious to everybody you meet (which in my opinion is actually counterproductive). This is more along the lines of if you could steal money and not be caught, why wouldn't you do it? If you could backstab a co-worker to get a raise what's stopping you?

There are many factors involved as to why we are moral but I would venture to say that those who are utterly ruthless in the pursuit of power and wealth or backstab co-workers don't do so just because they think they can get away with it. There is always an underlying motive.

Having said that, we get these kinds of questions all the time from Christians and I just don't get why. If, as an atheist, my motives for being moral are just as effective as a theist's, what difference does it make? Why ask idiotic questions about my motives if the results are the same?

The problem is that the believers who ask these kinds of questions don't care about morality, they're only concerned with the motives. It doesn't matter that I'm moral if I'm not doing it for the "right" reasons.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I personally see Altruism as more of a negative thing since it is denying yourself.

What do you mean by selfish though? Everything is selfish, all of our actions are done for selfish reasons, even love.

 

[fantome profane]

Selfishness on my part will generally cause suffering to others. More to the point extreme selfishness will cause suffering in others that is much greater than any pleasure it will bring about for me. If we take it as a maxim that "suffering is bad" then logically I should act in such a way that minimizes suffering. Selfish action rarely if ever accomplishes that goal.

I believe that an important step in enlightenment is the realization that the self is an illusion. I do not act selfishly because on a fundamental level I do not believe that the self exists.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I do not believe that the self exists.

Explain.

 

[fantome profane]

Explain.

Not sure if I can, but I will try.


That which I call "I" has no real existence. It is nothing more than a collection of cells, a collection of atoms. It is a pattern of energy that exists within a wider pattern of energy that we call the universe. This particular pattern of energy has the emergent property of consciousness. Consciousness creates the delusion of separateness, of identity. When in reality no such separateness exists, therefore no identity, therefore no self.

I have often said somewhat flippantly but accurately that I am a figment of my own imagination.


At any rate, to get back to the op, no one has even been able to give me a logical reason to act selfishly.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Not sure if I can, but I will try.


That which I call "I" has no real existence. It is nothing more than a collection of cells, a collection of atoms. It is a pattern of energy that exists within a wider pattern of energy that we call the universe. This particular pattern of energy has the emergent property of consciousness. Consciousness creates the delusion of separateness, of identity. When in reality no such separateness exists, therefore no identity, therefore no self.

I have often said somewhat flippantly but accurately that I am a figment of my own imagination.


At any rate, to get back to the op, no one has even been able to give me a logical reason to act selfishly.

But it works for everyone, the ego is hardly ever constant in most areas, as you explained, but there is still consciousness, created by the brain, even though the consciousness does not remain the same, you are still conscious.

So, yes you could say the ego is almost never constant, but that would work for everyone, thus no reason to do anything for anybody, deny yourself for that reason then you must deny everyone for that reason.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Shyanekh,

Why not be selfish?

why care what people think of you when you're gone? Leaving a legacy of peace and kindness won't mean a jot to you if you cease to exist and will ultimately be forgotten by either the passage of time or the inevitable apocalyptic demise of our species.

This is the reason that MEDITATORS are the most selfish people as they live HERE-NOW! and all that description you mentioned as above!

Love & rgds

 

[blackout]

I don't think there is a such thing as "the right thing", in an objective sense.

There are different things, that result in different outcomes.

You can approach something 20 different ways
for 20 different outcomes,
or even 20 different ways
for more or less the very same outcome.

Which outcome weighs out to you as the most.... desirable?
What is it you are wanting to do?
As well, which way, or approach, to your desired outcome,
do you like the best?
Which approach will be the most effective.
Which one works the best for you in your situation.
and Why? (this is the "Know ThySelf" Question. )

 

[Caladan]

I personally see Altruism as more of a negative thing since it is denying yourself.

I assume this is more talk than action though.

What do you mean by selfish though? Everything is selfish, all of our actions are done for selfish reasons, even love.

There is nothing wrong with healthy selfishness. remember the question was addressed to people who do not attach a spiritual meaning to acting positively.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

You can't be serious. So, regardless of the moral dimensions of your actions and thoughts, its actually your own happiness that is more important an indicator of whether or not you'll think and act a certain way? Sigh.

It's all about you. If making people happy makes you happier than harming them, you will cheer them up. If stealing food and depriving someone else of that food makes you happier than starving, you will do it. If suicide is more pleasurable than living your life, you will do it. It's not a matter of importance. It's a matter of fact.

Not entirely?

Sometimes it is more enjoyable to be cruel than to be kind, in my experience.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I assume this is more talk than action though.

What do you mean?

There is nothing wrong with healthy selfishness. remember the question was addressed to people who do not attach a spiritual meaning to acting positively.

I don't believe I am?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

For those wondering, this isn't a smug "I'm a theist and thus morally superior" argument. I do my best to live the lifestyle I described. I just honestly don't understand why anybody would follow conventional notions of morality and decency when there is ultimately nothing to be gained from it. I don't get why people feel they should be "good".

Then, without trying to sound condescending, you obviously haven't thought about it very much. It doesn't take any deep philosophical underpinnings to look at other people and come to the conclusion "hey, maybe I should treat these people in a manner that I would like to be treated myself". The reasons behind this are a multitude. Humans are social animals, and what is better for the herd is also (in most cases) better for the individual. Acting like a selfish, arrogant turd might get you plenty of places, but doing so requires bypassing the empathy hotwired into our brains. In general, the reason non-theistic people don't act like socially irresponsible dicks all the time is basically exactly the same as any other sane, rational human beings: because being a dick generally benefits nobody, whereas not being a dick generally benefits everyone.

Oh one more thing, I can completely understand staying within the law so as to avoid punishment and I'm not suggesting being obnoxious to everybody you meet (which in my opinion is actually counterproductive). This is more along the lines of if you could steal money and not be caught, why wouldn't you do it? If you could backstab a co-worker to get a raise what's stopping you?

Basic human empathy. Look it up.

 

[Caladan]

What do you mean?

Well, let me put it this way. do you show no altruism in your personal life? even in the little things? every person gives a little bit of time even to carry the bags for an elderly lady, hold the door for a member of the opposite sex, or just do something to make someone else happy.

I don't believe I am?

Ah, my mistake. for some reason I thought that your post was not addressed to the OP.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Well, let me put it this way. do you show no altruism in your personal life? even in the little things? every person gives a little bit of time even to carry the bags for an elderly lady, hold the door for a member of the opposite sex, or just do something to make someone else happy.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

 

[jarofthoughts]

This is largely aimed at people who either don't believe in an afterlife or at least don't believe in punishment/reward in the afterlife.

I guess I qualify.

If you only get one shot at life, why care what people think of you when you're gone?

I don't.
But I do care whether they listened to what I had to say or not.

Leaving a legacy of peace and kindness won't mean a jot to you if you cease to exist and will ultimately be forgotten by either the passage of time or the inevitable apocalyptic demise of our species.

I don't care much for leaving a legacy.

Why not devote your life to yourself?

Depends on what you mean by that.

Why not be utterly ruthless in the pursuit of power and wealth, look out only for yourself and your loved ones and let all others be damned?

Because I tried wealth (Up to a point. I've been a broker as well as a marketing executive.) and it didn't make me happy.
As for power, I don't think I'm the best person to make the decisions in every instance, and I also think I personally benefit from leaving certain decisions to other people.

Why not strike a balance between self preservation and satisfying your desires and leave any concept of morality out of the equation?

Because everyone benefits if everyone is doing better.
It's a statistical fact and has nothing to do with morality.

Why care about any concept of honesty, honour or decency if it's ultimately futile?

Because I benefit greatly from people trusting me.

With no threat of punishment, no promise of reward and no material gain or loss after death, why not be selfish?

I am.
Altruism is essentially selfishness.
Taking care of others is to your benefit.

For those wondering, this isn't a smug "I'm a theist and thus morally superior" argument. I do my best to live the lifestyle I described. I just honestly don't understand why anybody would follow conventional notions of morality and decency when there is ultimately nothing to be gained from it. I don't get why people feel they should be "good".

I try to do good because it makes me feel good, and because in most cases, it also benefits me.
I'll leave it to other people to decide whether I actually succeed in being good.

Oh one more thing, I can completely understand staying within the law so as to avoid punishment and I'm not suggesting being obnoxious to everybody you meet (which in my opinion is actually counterproductive). This is more along the lines of if you could steal money and not be caught, why wouldn't you do it? If you could backstab a co-worker to get a raise what's stopping you?

Tit for tat has show itself to be an unbeatable strategy.
That should be all the answer you require.

 

[Caladan]

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

I think you are needlessly dramatizing what altruism may mean. it can also mean giving (even something very minimal and seemingly insignificant) while getting no personal gain from it.

 

[idav]

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

IMO, altruism is just treating everything with equal respect and acceptance.

"Love others as yourself."

This can only go so far in reality as it is hard to love your enemy but it can be done. Loving your enemy is where it could be dangerous which leads me more to respecting equally when they deserve it but that isn't really selfishness or altruism.

 

[839311]

It's all about you.

No it isn't. The consideration and support of others plays an important role in my life. That is why I give to the homeless, donate money to africa, and just try to be a good person, not for selfish reasons but because virtuous beings are the ultimate kind of life. On the other hand, an evil reality full of dark beings is something that we should all work to avoid. It shouldn't have to be said, but pain and suffering and vice of any kind should be opposed.

If making people happy makes you happier than harming them, you will cheer them up.

I would cheer them up because its the right thing to do, and because I don't like it when others suffer.

If stealing food and depriving someone else of that food makes you happier than starving, you will do it.

The question of survival has little to do with happiness. If I was in this position, I would be unhappy either way. Either I starve myself, or I steal the food and possibly make someone else starve. Its a terrible situation to be in. Sadly, many people face this situation. In such a case, whether or not to steal the food would depend on all sorts of circumstances, like whether or not the other person whom Im stealing food from has an abundance of food, or like me, is on the brink of starving to death.

If suicide is more pleasurable than living your life, you will do it.

No I wouldn't. Suicide would be a tragedy to people I care deeply about. The thought of causing them that much pain just so I could escape mine is a powerful deterent. Unless ofcourse the pain was truly unbearable, in which case, a person taking their own life would be justified in doing so.

Sometimes it is more enjoyable to be cruel than to be kind, in my experience.

Your lack of morality is deeply disappointing, and I'm also worried about your spiritual and psychological health. I hope you change your view, and soon. Like five minutes ago.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

No it isn't. The consideration and support of others plays an important role in my life. That is why I give to the homeless, donate money to africa, and just try to be a good person, not for selfish reasons but because virtuous beings are the ultimate kind of life. On the other hand, an evil reality full of dark beings is something that we should all work to avoid. It shouldn't have to be said, but pain and suffering and vice of any kind should be opposed.

Thank you for agreeing.

I would cheer them up because its the right thing to do, and because I don't like it when others suffer.

Again, thank you.

The question of survival has little to do with happiness. If I was in this position, I would be unhappy either way. Either I starve myself, or I steal the food and possibly make someone else starve. Its a terrible situation to be in. Sadly, many people face this situation. In such a case, whether or not to steal the food would depend on all sorts of circumstances, like whether or not the other person whom Im stealing food from has an abundance of food, or like me, is on the brink of starving to death.

Survival has everything to do with happiness. Why else do monks self-immolate? Dying would give them more pleasure than living. That is why all martyrs die.

No I wouldn't. Suicide would be a tragedy to people I care deeply about. The thought of causing them that much pain just so I could escape mine is a powerful deterent. Unless ofcourse the pain was truly unbearable, in which case, a person taking their own life would be justified in doing so.

Why are you denying our agreement? As I said, if the pleasure attained by dying is greater than the pleasure of living, you would commit suicide, as you just said.

Your lack of morality is deeply disappointing, and I'm also worried about your spiritual and psychological health. I hope you change your view, and soon. Like five minutes ago.

Okay. I will stop being conscious.

Now what?

 

[839311]

Why else do monks self-immolate?

Dying would give them more pleasure than living. That is why all martyrs die.

:faint:

"A number of Buddhist monks (including the most famous case of Thích Quảng Đức) immolated themselves in protest of the discriminatory treatment endured by Buddhists under the Roman Catholic administration of President Ngô Đình Diệm in South Vietnam" - Wikipedia, Self-Immolation.

Many self-immolations are for noble causes. To give up ones life so that others may benefit from their sacrifice is noble, if extreme. Your basically saying that those monks who give up their lives for others and for goodness do so for selfish reasons......... that leaves a repulsive taste in my mouth. Such defamation is beyond disgraceful...... AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why are you denying our agreement?

You seem to have a habit of twisting goodness into some corrupted form of selfishness. The only person you are fooling is yourself.