3 ms·
That's not an interpretation, that's just pointing out that people who do not have a strong conception of themselves or have self-imposed limits on their behavi
by greenonions 6y ago
That's not an interpretation, that's just pointing out that people who do not have a strong conception of themselves or have self-imposed limits on their behavior according to their moral system have no reason not to blindly pursue enhancing their material wealth.
- 8note 6y agoThey don't have a reason to pursue that material wealth either
- coldtea 6y agoHow so? Material wealth gives all kinds of tangible benefits as control, pleasure, influence, access, etc -- even better health and surely better healthcare. Whereas, what does being moral/good give (to the invididual practicing it, not to the community) except a feel-good feeling (and that only on those who care for it)? (I'm in favor of being moral, just point their point of view).
- sojournerc 6y agoI tend to think of morality as an emergent property of successful social structures. It's a necessary common value system that underlies peaceful cooperation. In this sense it's an evolutionary advantage to treat each other morally and have a shared ethic. That includes not exploiting others for personal gain.
- Smaug123 6y agoIt sounds like you haven't heard of that experiment on rats. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QsMJQSFj7WfoTMNgW/the-tragedy-of-group-selectionism https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QsMJQSFj7WfoTMNgW/the-traged...
- coldtea 6y ago>It's a necessary common value system that underlies peaceful cooperation. In this sense it's an evolutionary advantage to treat each other morally and have a shared ethic. That includes not exploiting others for personal gain. It's an evolutionary advantage for a species. For an individual animal it's an advantage to not follow morality anytime it can get away with it, and thus gain more sexual partners, food, influence in the herd, etc, and from that, more progeny.