Should One Always Behave?

If a individual knew that all his or her acts of kindness and empathy would get them nowhere in the world why should they be obliged to responsibility of being good knowing that such a thing would decay their chances of reasonable survival?

Obliged according to whom?
Or do you mean...
'do you think they should....?'

The Fool wrote:

If a individual knew that all his or her acts of kindness and empathy would get them nowhere in the world why should they be obliged to responsibility of being good knowing that such a thing would decay their chances of reasonable survival?

They shouldn't be obligated; survival is the motive.

Though, there is more to the question: whose life are you willing to value higher than your own? -- your wife? -- your children?

...a stranger?

creasy wrote:

Obliged according to whom?
Or do you mean...
'do you think they should....?'

Let's go with both.

I'm somewhat machiavellian and darwinian when it comes with human behavior.

I believe that if your best chances of survival and pleasure requires you be uncompassionate, un-ethical, without morals, or without forgivesness in that you become ruthless without mercy to those you are competing with then that is course one must take.

The Fool wrote:

I'm somewhat machiavellian and darwinian when it comes with human behavior.

I believe that if your best chances of survival and pleasure requires you be uncompassionate, un-ethical, without morals, or without forgivesness in that you become ruthless without mercy to those you are competing with then that is course one must take.

Why not just say you like that attitude?
Why make it a rule?
Should someone who is compassionate and not out of guilt follow your rule?
Well, no, it would detract from their joy in life?

Why add in your should?

You are fighting should with should?

Some people say you should be compassionate. Some people are that without guilt or self compulsion.
It sounds like you are not or think you are not.

Why not just do what you want to do instead of setting up another rule?

creasy,

The Fool never brought up "should"; you did.

Unreasonable wrote:

creasy,

The Fool never brought up "should"; you did.

Actually he went beyond should and used ´must´. He is unversalizing his own preference.
To me that is slipping moralizing in. If one truly must do something then there is no need to defend the action or stance. That´s why I think his must is really a should and a very strong one.

creasy wrote:

Unreasonable wrote:

creasy,

The Fool never brought up "should"; you did.

Actually he went beyond should and used ´must´. He is unversalizing his own preference.
To me that is slipping moralizing in. If one truly must do something then there is no need to defend the action or stance. That´s why I think his must is really a should and a very strong one.

Quote :

I believe that if your best chances of survival and pleasure requires you be uncompassionate, un-ethical, without morals, or without forgivesness in that you become ruthless without mercy to those you are competing with then that is course one must take.

But I said if one has to first before I inserted the "must".

The inserted "must" comes into play by that of preference or by that of relative necessity.

Perhaps you did not mean that people 'should'. I read it that way, but if you did not mean it, that's another story. To me 'has to' and 'must' are very close in meaning. In any case it seemed like you were generalizing. Even the idea that everyone 'has to' or 'must' seems too general to me. Different people have different priorities.

The Fool wrote:

If a individual knew that all his or her acts of kindness and empathy would get them nowhere in the world why should they be obliged to responsibility of being good knowing that such a thing would decay their chances of reasonable survival?

It is only a guideline to use. that is all social ethics are. There is a wide gray area on either side of that line. If a person decides to to stay away from the gray area and try to do nothing but good, then that person will likely cause their own demise, the same with a person that does only the opposite. We are not obliged to do only good. Anyone with a pinch of sense knows that to be impossible if you wish to survive.

creasy wrote:

Perhaps you did not mean that people 'should'. I read it that way, but if you did not mean it, that's another story. To me 'has to' and 'must' are very close in meaning. In any case it seemed like you were generalizing. Even the idea that everyone 'has to' or 'must' seems too general to me. Different people have different priorities.

But wouldn't you say that sometimes priorities within different kinds of people leads them to be cruel,ruthless, and uncompassionate towards others during survival because such ways of existing in their temporal world is the only means at their disposal to get what they relatively desire?

Sometimes people try being compassionate where many times it fails them where they are left with only the alternatives in existing. This happens.

Just because one acts compassionate does not mean that their lives will somehow mysteriously give them what they want out of life nor will it always bring benefits and there are many times where being compassionate becomes a liability.

Other topics I would like to include within this thread:

Amongst nature and the most primitive enviroments there exists no justification for anything when it comes to actions or existing.

Why must one justify anything? Where does justification come from? Why should we pay it any heed?


Is morality or ethics merely the configuration of utility? Why is utility projected onto the nature of things?

How is utility projected onto the nature of things?

If we accept that there exists no absolute state of affairs where there exists no thing-in- of- itself how then can morality or ethics exist?

How false is the supposition that an "action" must depend upon what has preceded it in consciousness?

The value of an action must be judged by its results; to measure if according to its origin involves the impossibility of knowing that origin.

There is no "being" behind doing,working or becoming.

The "doer" is a mere appendage to the action as the action is everything.

There exists no "doing-doing" nor is there a thing-in-itself.


Values are not real and don't exist beyond the one valuing. A value may be real enough relatively to the observer by their own will but amongst a objective existence it shall always remain non-existent.

(A solipstic paradox.)

Directional progress is non-existent within evolution that has no guiding direction but instead exists in all directions by that of various and diverse mutations.

All phenomena extends from homogenuity with moral differentions being reduced to perspective.

It is not erroneous to state that noone has the right to impose their morality on myself or others as such a perception is but the motion of natural preservation?

If we accept that existence revolves around relativity could we say that morality and ethics are so relative that they cannot exist?

There exists no observable trait as noone is entitled to anything.

How can we call any action wrong or immoral? Are not these words just another way of saying unnatural?

What is unnatural? To state this is to commit a naturalistic fallacy.

Everything that exists is natural and in such a world everything is appropiate.

All means of action are natural. All means of action are permissible.

The Fool wrote:

But wouldn't you say that sometimes priorities within different kinds of people leads them to be cruel,ruthless, and uncompassionate towards others during survival because such ways of existing in their temporal world is the only means at their disposal to get what they relatively desire?

Yes, I see that that happens. And it is easier not to be abusive if you have more means. But I don't agree with the idea that abuse is a given and that to live is to attack others.

Quote :

Sometimes people try being compassionate where many times it fails them where they are left with only the alternatives in existing. This happens.

Yes, this happens. But I think one can find a balance point where one is compassionate both for oneself and others. Not that this is an easy thing to do especially in certain situations.

However there is a kind of emotional autism in certain individuals who do not really notice other people's emotions. These individuals then see compassionate people as simply acting out of guilt or following rules (religious or secular) AND not being authentic when they give a shit about the affects of their actions on others. IOW they project their own inability onto others. (whether these people lack sufficient mirror neurons in their brain or their souls lack empathy is an argument the neuroscientists can have with the religious)

Quote :

Just because one acts compassionate does not mean that their lives will somehow mysteriously give them what they want out of life nor will it always bring benefits and there are many times where being compassionate becomes a liability.

No. But notice how you are arguing against an extreme idea I have not put forward.

The Fool wrote:

Other topics I would like to include within this thread:

Amongst nature and the most primitive enviroments there exists no justification for anything when it comes to actions or existing.

Why must one justify anything? Where does justification come from? Why should we pay it any heed?


Is morality or ethics merely the configuration of utility? Why is utility projected onto the nature of things?

How is utility projected onto the nature of things?

If we accept that there exists no absolute state of affairs where there exists no thing-in- of- itself how then can morality or ethics exist?

How false is the supposition that an "action" must depend upon what has preceded it in consciousness?

The value of an action must be judged by its results; to measure if according to its origin involves the impossibility of knowing that origin.

There is no "being" behind doing,working or becoming.

The "doer" is a mere appendage to the action as the action is everything.

There exists no "doing-doing" nor is there a thing-in-itself.


Values are not real and don't exist beyond the one valuing. A value may be real enough relatively to the observer by their own will but amongst a objective existence it shall always remain non-existent.

(A solipstic paradox.)

Directional progress is non-existent within evolution that has no guiding direction but instead exists in all directions by that of various and diverse mutations.

All phenomena extends from homogenuity with moral differentions being reduced to perspective.

It is not erroneous to state that noone has the right to impose their morality on myself or others as such a perception is but the motion of natural preservation?

If we accept that existence revolves around relativity could we say that morality and ethics are so relative that they cannot exist?

There exists no observable trait as noone is entitled to anything.

How can we call any action wrong or immoral? Are not these words just another way of saying unnatural?

What is unnatural? To state this is to commit a naturalistic fallacy.

Everything that exists is natural and in such a world everything is appropiate.

All means of action are natural. All means of action are permissible.

All of the above can be summed up with the word survival. Each person applies or does not apply the above in hopes that it extends their survival. right or wrong bad or good moral ethics all are for survival. We grasp what comes along because all creatures struggle to survive.

Quote :

And it is easier not to be abusive if you have more means.

Making so called morality, ethics, and altruism luxories of those who can only afford ( Somthing that not everyone can afford.) them but even more I would argue such perceptions are dominated by gaining power, influence, or control that is to say morals are ways of controlling other people's actions. ( Controlling your competition.)

Quote :

But I don't agree with the idea that abuse is a given and that to live is to attack others.

Existence is where different creatures devour each other in competition of survival.

A certain level of abuse and violence is a existential given however not all of existence of course.

( A large part however.)

It really depends on what part of the ladder or social line of existence that one is on.

The more desperate a person becomes the more desperate and vicious means they will use to their disposal in trying to gain what they desire.

The more security and comfort one acquires in life the less likely they'll use such extremes towards others.

Quote :

But I think one can find a balance point where one is compassionate both for oneself and others.

Not always. It's not that simple.

Quote :

Not that this is an easy thing to do especially in certain situations.

Of course not.

Quote :

However there is a kind of emotional autism in certain individuals who do not really notice other people's emotions.

You call it a flaw but is it really one? Others may find empowerment in such emotions.

Quote :

These individuals then see compassionate people as simply acting out of guilt or following rules (religious or secular) AND not being authentic when they give a shit about the affects of their actions on others.

And on many occasions I can understand such sentiments.

Quote :

IOW they project their own inability onto others.

Isn't it the same for the so called moral man and woman with their projections?

They project their narrow view points on the rest of the world due to their own inabilities........

Quote :

No. But notice how you are arguing against an extreme idea I have not put forward.

I'm not saying you put that view out there I'm merely just trying to make a point.

The Fool wrote:

If a individual knew that all his or her acts of kindness and empathy would get them nowhere in the world why should they be obliged to responsibility of being good knowing that such a thing would decay their chances of reasonable survival?

by get them no where do you mean purely in the sense of self? What I mean is will these acts of kindness have an impact on the lives of those who they are trying to help? If the answer to the second question is yes I would say there is a point, as the feeling that you have helped your fellow man is a very uplifting one, one that can be quite addictive. That which is detrimental to our survival is often a favorate with modern day humans.

Quote :

by get them no where do you mean purely in the sense of self?

Yes.

Quote :

What I mean is will these acts of kindness have an impact on the lives of those who they are trying to help?

It isn't impossible to imagine a individual who tries to act in accordance to the social mythos known as "good" only to get nowhere in their self interests or desires, is it?

Very often in this world such ideals can become a liability by working against the relative desires and self interests of the man or woman initiating them.

Quote :

If the answer to the second question is yes I would say there is a point, as the feeling that you have helped your fellow man is a very uplifting one, one that can be quite addictive.

Only if it brings a benefit to yourself.

What happens when your total obedience to an ideal offers no reward to yourself?

Quote :

That which is detrimental to our survival is often a favorate with modern day humans.

Not really.

The Fool wrote:

It isn't impossible to imagine a individual who tries to act in accordance to the social mythos known as "good" only to get nowhere in their self interests or desires, is it?

Just trying to clarify what you meant by self interests

Quote :

Only if it brings a benefit to yourself.

That's not true at all, unless you count the feeling itself in which case I would agree with you.

Quote :

What happens when your total obedience to an ideal offers no reward to yourself?

The happiness brought by the feeling of helping someone remains

Quote :

Quote :

That which is detrimental to our survival is often a favourite with modern day humans.

Not really.

Smoking, Drinking, Taking drugs, eating too much, extreme sports, extreme dieting. Need I go on?

Quote :

The happiness brought by the feeling of helping someone remains

Noone does anything that doesn't benefit themselves somehow. Every charity has a ulterior motive.

I see no point in helping another if I have nothing that rewards me in the end and often enough it is that with all human beings.

Quote :

Smoking, Drinking, Taking drugs, eating too much, extreme sports, extreme dieting. Need I go on?

Your trying to make these things parallel to your much embraced altruism so you can come around saying altruism exists however if I'm not mistaken these items of inquiry you have listed have nothing to do with altruism therefore the bridge your trying to build in order to make a arguement for altruism is bound to sink in.

The Fool wrote:

Noone does anything that doesn't benefit themselves somehow. Every charity has a ulterior motive.

I see no point in helping another if I have nothing that rewards me in the end and often enough it is that with all human beings.

I dont doubt, thats what the feeling is for, to give us reward when there is none.

The Fool wrote:

Your trying to make these things parallel to your much embraced altruism so you can come around saying altruism exists however if I'm not mistaken these items of inquiry you have listed have nothing to do with altruism therefore the bridge your trying to build in order to make a arguement for altruism is bound to sink in.

What? No im giving you examples of things humans do that are self destructive in order to prove you wrong, which judging by your response you now realise you were