Partial Egoism

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Systematic
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Partial Egoism

Post by Systematic » Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:22 am

When reading Nietzsche, I realized that there were certain problems with altruism. Basically, if everyone were completely altruistic, there would be no one to hold everyone to the altruistic standard. There is basic anarchy. It is apparent that Nietzsche did believe in altruism when upheld by the master class.
I however do not believe that to be ideal. While I do see a need for some altruism, I see much more need for the people to uphold their own self-interest. I call that partial egoism. I find the master class of people to be unnecessary if the people can muster a modicum of self-control.
I don’t, however, propose utilitarianism. Utilitarianism tends to be too mild. It degrades into altruism too easily. The good of the individual gets lost in the good of the many, and the good of the few displaces the good of the many.
Certainly, you would be correct to see the problem with absolute egoism, but with partial egoism, the contentions should disappear unless you are one of the few withholding good from the many. Firstly, partial egoism does not seek its own self-interest to the detriment of others. That does not necessarily mean that the good of others is as important to the individual as it would be in the ideal of utilitarianism, but there is a slight concern for our fellow man.
Also, the tendency to help others in extreme need is upheld in part. Who of us has never needed help? But we still reserve the right to stand up for our own wants and desires from those who don’t really need our help.

User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: Partial Egoism

Post by Necromancer » Mon Dec 19, 2016 7:57 am

I think you forget about Utopia in your "equation". :)

ken
Posts: 2074
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Partial Egoism

Post by ken » Mon Dec 19, 2016 3:19 pm

Systematic wrote:When reading Nietzsche, I realized that there were certain problems with altruism. Basically, if everyone were completely altruistic, there would be no one to hold everyone to the altruistic standard. There is basic anarchy.
Why do you think there would be a need for any one to hold everyone else to a standard?

Does 'anarchy' have to have a negative connotation to it?

With no one holding every one to a standard, then obviously there would be no one's orders to follow, but if every one was doing for the well being of every one else, then would any one really care? Without any one's orders there may well be disorder and/or chaos but just because human beings' behaviors are unpredictable or may well appear random that in now way means it is a bad or wrong thing. In fact if every one is doing the good or right thing for every one else in an altruistic for the good of every one as One or equally in a random manner or unpredictable way, instead of the so called behaving in the programmed or predictable way that human beings are forced to follow now through 'law and, so called, order', then I would much prefer the former.
Systematic wrote: It is apparent that Nietzsche did believe in altruism when upheld by the master class.
Who really cares what one human being thought?

As soon as the words 'master' and 'class' come into play in relation to human beings, then everything else said is not noteworthy at all. There is no "class" of human beings. They can not be separated, and, there is certainly NO "masters' when it comes to trying to "class" human beings. The two words separately do not work with human beings and if and when those two words are tried to be used together when said in conjunction with human beings, then there needs to be a lot of explaining to be done.
Systematic wrote:I however do not believe that to be ideal. While I do see a need for some altruism, I see much more need for the people to uphold their own self-interest.
No matter what the self-interest is?

Do human beings realize that individually they all cease to live one day, but as a species they could continue to live for ever more? That is only if and when they are thinking about and behaving for each and every one as a One Self, and not just thinking and doing for their own individual one self. Having Self-interest for every One is far different than having self-interest for only one.
Systematic wrote: I call that partial egoism. I find the master class of people to be unnecessary if the people can muster a modicum of self-control.
I don’t, however, propose utilitarianism. Utilitarianism tends to be too mild. It degrades into altruism too easily. The good of the individual gets lost in the good of the many, and the good of the few displaces the good of the many.
Certainly, you would be correct to see the problem with absolute egoism, but with partial egoism, the contentions should disappear unless you are one of the few withholding good from the many. Firstly, partial egoism does not seek its own self-interest to the detriment of others.
How could an individual seeking its own self-interest not be to the detriment of others?

By definition one individual's own self-interest infers that they have an interest to the self before, and/or to the detriment of, others.
Systematic wrote: That does not necessarily mean that the good of others is as important to the individual as it would be in the ideal of utilitarianism, but there is a slight concern for our fellow man.
So, do you really think that just having a slight concern for your own children, and their children, so on and that the good of them is not as important as the good to you, is a far better way to live, then just having the exact same concern for ALL and that the good of ALL is not really a good outlook to have on Life?
Systematic wrote:Also, the tendency to help others in extreme need is upheld in part. Who of us has never needed help?
The needs of every human being is the exact same, and in the exact same extreme. What you are proposing is extremely subjective and way to subjective to have any real meaning.
Systematic wrote: But we still reserve the right to stand up for our own wants and desires from those who don’t really need our help.
Again, way to subjective to have any relevance.

To use about one of the most common examples of today, whether "those" who really need "our" help to keep living or not is depended upon "our" own want and desire. How many children do "we" allow to die every day, month, and year from their need of a bit of food and some clean water?

The reason we allow this to continue is because of "our" own want and desire for more money. Besides the fact that "we" allow millions to die of starvation "we" also shorten "othersr" lives by forcing them to work in order to satisfy "our" wants and desires. Think about all the things on that body, in your house, and even the house itself, that is not needed, but only wanted and desired, for no other reason than to show others that 'i" have more than "you".

Thinking about and doing for ALL OF US as One, to Me, is a much more sensible approach to Life and living, then just thinking about and doing for and in one's own self-interest or only a select few.

Systematic
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: Partial Egoism

Post by Systematic » Mon Dec 19, 2016 5:58 pm

Ken, I agree with most of the points that you are making, but I don't see how anyone is helped if we must all be altruistic. Anarchy is not altruistic. Standing up to the powers that be is not altruistic. Unions are not altruistic. These things mostly uphold the self-interest of several people. And your own children get a free pass. You love them no matter what.

What I am saying is that we should have the right to be mostly selfish, and that, per se, would effect the most good for mankind.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2966
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Partial Egoism

Post by Greta » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:54 pm

I wonder if there is any system capable of organising seven billion people in any kind of reasonable way. Altruism and utilitarianism today need not be argued against because they are now akin to rather pleasant, distant dreams. Instead, humanity being reintroduced to natural selection, after a brief period of relatively gentle living.

However, rather than humans outcompeting other species, as was the case in the past, it's now a matter of human institutions outcompeting human individuals.

ken
Posts: 2074
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Partial Egoism

Post by ken » Tue Dec 20, 2016 8:16 am

Systematic wrote:Ken, I agree with most of the points that you are making, but I don't see how anyone is helped if we must all be altruistic.
I also do not see how anything is helped or achieved if we MUST all be any thing.

Only through voluntary behaviors of wanting to help each and all others I see any real meaningful thing is achieved here.
Systematic wrote:Anarchy is not altruistic.
I never said it was. I just wanted to gain a better understanding of where you are coming from, so I was just asking you for clarity of your perspective, "Does 'anarchy' have to have a negative connotation to it?"
Systematic wrote: Standing up to the powers that be is not altruistic. Unions are not altruistic. These things mostly uphold the self-interest of several people. And your own children get a free pass. You love them no matter what.
I am not sure why you are saying this and how it fits in with anything else.
Systematic wrote:What I am saying is that we should have the right to be mostly selfish, and that, per se, would effect the most good for mankind.
That is fair enough and that might work, but I would need to see some examples of how being mostly selfish would effect the most good for mankind.

I know, however, that when human beings can answer the question, Who am 'I'?, correctly, then by all means being selfish for this One WILL benefit all of human kind as well as every other thing, But until then I would think one individual human beings being mostly selfish would only really benefit them self and the select few they choose to benefit.

ken
Posts: 2074
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Partial Egoism

Post by ken » Tue Dec 20, 2016 8:28 am

Greta wrote:I wonder if there is any system capable of organising seven billion people in any kind of reasonable way.
I know of one way. That way is through a Self-governing system.

Human beings in general like to be their own boss, they do not like to be told what to do and how to behave, and then be punished or ridiculed for doing otherwise. Children, if given choices, will voluntary do what is necessary, but when told that they have to do some thing, then they will usually test the limits of what they can get away with. A natural instinct is to be the boss of one's own life. This is my life and I will do what I want when I want is internal voice in most human beings. Anyway, only after knowing one's True Self, then it will be proven that this One will only do what is good and right for every one. Until then human beings will usually only do what is good and right for their own self and the few select few they have learned and chosen to love.

Within every human being there is a knowing of what is right and what is wrong in LIfe, which is agreed upon and accepted by every one, and when human beings are behaving completely voluntary to achieve this, then this is the truly Self-governing society that will create a truly peaceful and loving world for absolutely everyOne, that is every thing.

User avatar
TSBU
Posts: 825
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:46 pm

Re: Partial Egoism

Post by TSBU » Tue Dec 20, 2016 1:40 pm

ken wrote: Children, if given choices, will voluntary do what is necessary,

Within every human being there is a knowing of what is right and what is wrong in LIfe
Image
Image
Image
Image

ken
Posts: 2074
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Partial Egoism

Post by ken » Tue Dec 20, 2016 4:27 pm

TSBU wrote:
ken wrote: Children, if given choices, will voluntary do what is necessary,

Within every human being there is a knowing of what is right and what is wrong in LIfe
Image
Image
Image
Image
What do the photos imply to you? Pictures can be very ambiguous and really not explain that much at all about what is being thought in another's head.

To Me, the first picture says children will do what they want, when they want?

Children learn what they can and can not do and they will test what they can and can not get away with, which is what I wrote, "Children, if given choices, will voluntary do what is necessary, but when told that they have to do some thing, then they will usually test the limits of what they can get away with". This testing of limits is probably proven in all four pictures. Also, just maybe the eating of poop, whilst as very young children, has some kind of bad bacteria preventative medicinal purposes to it. Just like eating snot might also fortify the immune system.

The second photo proves that children will voluntary do what is necessary, that is eat. If adults, however, have become that stupid that they encourage their children to eat to much, then that is not a child's fault. Why would a child not (over) indulge in what tastes and feels good if it was handed to them, literally, on a platter?

I am not sure if it is believed that the third and fourth photo implies whether they are children or not, but either way they obviously have chosen to do what they THINK is necessary and good and/or right for their own self and/or a select few. (I forgot to stipulate the words '/or' and 'they think' in the sentence, "Until then human beings will usually only do what (they think) is good and(/or) right for their own self and/or the few select few they have learned and chosen to love."

A human brain can learn absolutely anything, including to believe and justify what is wrong as being what is right. The Mind knows what is right and wrong in Life, and if followed the body will only do what is right. The brain, however, can only think it knows what is right and what is wrong in Life from what it has previously been exposed to. What a human brain has been exposed to will influence what it believes to be is the good and/or right things to do, which obviously can actually be the bad and or wrong things to do.

User avatar
TSBU
Posts: 825
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:46 pm

Re: Partial Egoism

Post by TSBU » Tue Dec 20, 2016 6:39 pm

Children eat poop, literally and not literally. Parents, and other people, need to teach them, and sometimes, use violence (that is, force them to do what they don't want to do). Children like to play in high places. And children, and not children, usually die or lose their legs because of that. I mean, puting things in your mouth isn't always suicide, but eating poo in the forest is always a bad choice. And life is full of easy bad choices that many people take, like drugs, sex without protection, trash food, or "thinking" like you.

It would be wonderfull like a rainbow to think that people would be great with no coertion, but people are generally wrong, and that photos are just examples of common mistakes. Even violence and coertion are something in our insctint, how do you think it got here? magic? People were all able to know what is wrong and right, you say... then, why the fuck do they all do wrong? cause they are forced, you say. By other people who were forced too... well, what about the first ones? And, are you saying that, in all the history of humanity, you are the first fucking human being to think what you are repeating, and the first one who wants to stop using violence of any kind and "let people be"?

Easy answers are stupid answers. Life will teach you sooner or later if you are lucky, and, if you are lucky, you'll be still alive after that.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1489
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Partial Egoism

Post by Terrapin Station » Tue Dec 20, 2016 8:50 pm

It doesn't seem like something to worry about to me. People are going to act via a combination of self and other-interest no matter what. Our brain structure and function would have to significantly change for this to not be the case.

User avatar
TSBU
Posts: 825
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:46 pm

Re: Partial Egoism

Post by TSBU » Tue Dec 20, 2016 11:01 pm

Our thoughts structe implies that we do all what we do, in our self interest. And other thing is impossible. Of course, we can be wrong or right, of course, our interest may be serving others interest.
Change this in our thought is something imposible to imagine, it would be just like trying to imagine a Universe where 2+2=potato

ken
Posts: 2074
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Partial Egoism

Post by ken » Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:02 pm

TSBU wrote:
It would be wonderfull like a rainbow to think that people would be great with no coertion, but people are generally wrong, and that photos are just examples of common mistakes. Even violence and coertion are something in our insctint, how do you think it got here?
How do I think what got here? What is the 'it' you talk about?

If you are talking about violence and coercion, then according to your logic they are instinctively built into human beings. So what?

Eating poop and snot might also be instinctively built into human beings, but just because you do not like this behavior do you think it is all right for adult human beings to use violence and coercion to stop very young human beings from continuing this behavior? Or, do you think violence and coercion is only acceptable towards other human beings at other times and in other scenarios?
TSBU wrote:magic?
No.
TSBU wrote:People were all able to know what is wrong and right, you say... then, why the fuck do they all do wrong?
Very quickly, because of the brain and how it works, which has been taught to justify wrong behaviors.

If people use the brain only, then they will continue to do wrong.

For example some people believe that violence and coercion towards other human beings is acceptable behavior and that brain will justify to itself that what it does is acceptable behavior. Even though that brain does not want any violence nor coercion committed against the body that it is in.

How about you try and answer that question yourself. Why do YOU do wrong? You might just find out the answer to your question yourself.

Do you have any clue as to why YOU continually do wrong? Or, do you never do any wrong at all?

If you did answer all the questions I ask of you here, then you will really be helping Me to show and prove what I have been saying all along.
TSBU wrote:cause they are forced, you say.
I do not recall saying that.
TSBU wrote: By other people who were forced too... well, what about the first ones?
What about the first ones WHAT?

What/who are you referring to now?
TSBU wrote:And, are you saying that, in all the history of humanity, you are the first fucking human being to think what you are repeating, and the first one who wants to stop using violence of any kind and "let people be"?
No I am not saying any of this.
TSBU wrote:Easy answers are stupid answers. Life will teach you sooner or later if you are lucky, and, if you are lucky, you'll be still alive after that.
What do you propose Life will teach Me what exactly?

What do 'you' know that 'I' do not, yet, know?

If you want to teach Me 'easy answers are stupid answers', then you will need a lot more than just that simple statement to prove to Me otherwise.

User avatar
TSBU
Posts: 825
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:46 pm

Re: Partial Egoism

Post by TSBU » Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:04 pm

tl/dr.

ken
Posts: 2074
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Partial Egoism

Post by ken » Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:13 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:It doesn't seem like something to worry about to me. People are going to act via a combination of self and other-interest no matter what. Our brain structure and function would have to significantly change for this to not be the case.
I think what will be found is not so much the brain structure and function will significantly change, but rather the changing of how the brain is used is what will show what I have been expressing here. To gain and have the ability to have the interest of ALL equally does not come from the brain but rather from the Mind and the brain working together. Learning or discovering how the Mind and the brain actually works helps in being able to differentiate between the two and how to use both in conjunction with each other.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests