<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There are plenty of caring people in this world, and I bet half these supposed callous posters here wouldnt hesitate to donate money to Amnesty international and other charities for the third world. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I donate money to charity organistions, but that's my money. I can use it how I see fit. My government is there to help me, not people elsewhere. Why should the money we, the citizens, are paying go towards helping people in other nations?
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
They'd have to do some pretty spectacular convincing to get me signed up for 11B, get an M16 and a vest, and then shove my body in front of the bullets.
However... "Converts make the most fanatical followers"
(The question should be more "Would you be willing to FIGHT a war of liberation" it's easy to sit back, and support a war with words safe in your own home, watching the news over dinner while others turn each other inside out. Backing those words and ideals with actions is a different matter entirely, something I think may have been lost on some.)
It's a very interesting point Code966, except it would depend what country we're liberating...and me, well I'm denied entrance into the army based on eye-sight (I'm lucky I can drive, let alone shoot targets at 100m with an M16). I'd actually be fine for being a commando helping a revolution..if I could.
Then again, I don't see a point in fearing death, as it is inevitable (not suicidal though, searching for death: bad, accepting that death is not avoidable: good <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
In fact, I want to join the army to help pay for my college tuition...but I can't.
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
edited February 2004
I hold no delusions of immortality. I will die someday. So will those around me. However I am certainly in no rush, and if someone I have never, and will never meet expects me to fight and possibly die for them, they'd <censored> well better make me think they're worth it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sirus+Feb 15 2004, 01:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Feb 15 2004, 01:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ever heard of human nature? That's what your quote is about. I'm sure it'll kick in for you too. Imo there are two kinds of people: dead and selfish.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You must be living on a different plane. Not to mention, your opinion doesn't really make any sense. If everyone was selfish, everyone would be dead, including you. If your mother was selfish, and didn't love you, you would probably dead. She could've had an abortion, and you would be dead, or she could have given birth to you and drowned you, or left along the side of a road... et cetera et cetera. It's easier on a mother to not have children if they're truely self-centered.
The only reason people ever have a chance to live and let live is because of selflessness. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> My mom is selfish, you are selfish and I am selfish. We are animals afterall. My mother didn't get an abortion because she would've felt awfully bad afterwards. Someone gives money to charity only because it makes them feel good. The fact that some poor child gets a sweater doesn't have anything to do with it. He's still being selfish.
Though, now we are being totally OT. My apologies for that.
And don't get me wrong, like I said before, you should get your own problems fixed and then you can help others, if that's what the majority of the people want.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You must be living on a different plane. Not to mention, your opinion doesn't really make any sense. If everyone was selfish, everyone would be dead, including you. If your mother was selfish, and didn't love you, you would probably dead. She could've had an abortion, and you would be dead, or she could have given birth to you and drowned you, or left along the side of a road... et cetera et cetera. It's easier on a mother to not have children if they're truely self-centered.
The only reason people ever have a chance to live and let live is because of selflessness. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Human beings, like every other organism on the planet, are out for themselves. We are selfish; almost everything we do is for personal benefit in one way, shape or form. Your mother didn't have a child because it's the selfless thing to do; she was driven by a genetic urge to procreate, as is every organism. It's in an individuals' personal interest to pass on their genes; nothing selfless about that. Indeed it's quite selfish. She cared for you for the same reason: wishing to see her genes passed on, because obviously her child has to procreate as well in order for this to fully occur. Of course she did not consiously think that through; she would say she loves you. Which is an emotion derived from your genes. Women who did not have a genetic urge to care for their children did not pass on their genes, and as such died out.
We may live in societies and communities, but that doesn't make us any less selfish. A farmer grows some crops. Is he growing them because he cares for people who may starve? Of course not; he grows them so his family will have something to eat, and to produce money to buy himself, and his family, commerical goods. He helps his family again because he's genetically inclined to. He can chose not to of course, in which case his genes might not be passed on as his family may die. His emotions are telling him not to do that.
A citizen pays some taxes. Does he do this because he feels it is benefiting the community over all? No; he does it because the consequenses, for him, are dire if he does not. The benefits of living in a community, such as security, government and greater access to commerce and services also make living with others adventageous. The man may provide a service, but like the farmer he's doing it for his own ends, not everyone elses. In a community, the man can exploit the services of others to suppliment his lifestyle.
Two people form a friendship. Such bonds are everywhere amongst humans, ranging from marriage to casual friends. Do we seek out the companionship of others because we feel it is the selfless thing to do? No, we, as individuals, wish to exploit others. A husband exploits his wife as a vessal for his child. A friend expolits her friend by discussing a problem with her, thus gaining support. A man and a woman start a relationship but refrain from having children. Yet the bond has benefits: the two can tackle problems together; resources can be pooled; the skills of each partner can suppliment the skills of the other. Both are out for their own personal gain, but they understand the value of alliances.
All humans understand that alliances can bring great benefits, as do animals such as chimpanzees, baboons, dolphins or indeed any animal that spends a lot of time in groups or packs. Individuals working together bring greater benefits to the individuals within that group: a pack of wolves for example can bring down prey that alone they could not tackle, thus giving the individuals a meal they otherwise would not have had. Likewise a community of people can produce benefits for individuals, ranging from a group of hunters able to bring down an elephant to great nations able to control vast regions and the resources contained therein.
That's what mankind is: a selfish species. We only help others when there is something in it for us. A mother pulls her children from a burning car because she wants to save her genetic carriers. A politician promises tax cuts because he knows he will gain voter support, which has the potential to keep him in office. A person donates to a charity organistion so he or she can feel emotionally better, or perhaps they can claim it against taxes, or they can tell their friends they undertake such acts, thus elevating them within the social structure.
There are of course exceptions to this rule; a soldier leaping atop a grenade to save his comrades for example. But they are so rare as to warrent special attention whenever we read or hear about them.
And Dread, I don't think we are being OT by discussing this. After all, this whole topic is ment to examine if we would undertake a fairly selfless act. Understanding our own nature is fundamental to answering that question.
<!--QuoteBegin-MonsieurEvil+Feb 14 2004, 10:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Feb 14 2004, 10:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> CWAG - do you really believe that a majority of American children live in poverty? Because if so, you need to get out of the house and look around a bit. Hell, even our people in poverty over here would be like <i>Kings</i> in most countries. It's all relative...
Some of the follow on posts have helped reinforce a small faith in humanity.But the majority still disgust me. I guess we should not intervene in Kosovo, in Rwanda, in Liberia, in Haiti - and those just in the last 10 years. After all, let the mudpeople of the earth die, what do we care after all, it doesn't affect us at all. They probably deserved it anyways - I bet they want a strong dictatorship to keep their lives rigid and controlled too. You know, the same way a tiger likes living in a zoo cage. Perfectly natural. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Come to my city, then visit the surrounding cities in a 300 mile radius, and tell me whose facts are screwed up.
I dont care about numbers, and untill the % poverty in the united states is 0.0% I will not change my views.
Dread and Ryo, I'm sorry that you have such a superficial view of individuals. Ryo, your view is completely superficial in every point you make, not every friendship is a selfish desire, I don't know about you, but I make sacrifices in my relationships, that's the opposite of selfishness, I actually lose something so that my friend gains something. In the end, yes, we both are good friends, good relationship and enjoy eachother's company, but it's not because we were being selfish.
Actually, being generous is usually more rewarding in most situations. If everyone was generous and selfless not only would they be helping other people as they should, but they would actually have their desires met by other people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's what mankind is: a selfish species. We only help others when there is something in it for us. A mother pulls her children from a burning car because she wants to save her genetic carriers. A politician promises tax cuts because he knows he will gain voter support, which has the potential to keep him in office. A person donates to a charity organistion so he or she can feel emotionally better, or perhaps they can claim it against taxes, or they can tell their friends they undertake such acts, thus elevating them within the social structure<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true. A mother pulls her children away from a burning car because she loves them, you can call it whatever you want, just because there's another positive reward for doing that act doesn't mean that was the original intent.
To most of you, I'm sorry you live with a sorry attitude, you don't want to help people, you don't care about anyone that can't really help you out. I honestly can't even find the words to express what I'm thinking. I'm so completely confused that people are so selfish that you honestly don't care and you live with such apathy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My mom is selfish, you are selfish and I am selfish. We are animals afterall. My mother didn't get an abortion because she would've felt awfully bad afterwards. Someone gives money to charity only because it makes them feel good. The fact that some poor child gets a sweater doesn't have anything to do with it. He's still being selfish. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What we have here is two people with two completely true statements, for you, that's true. For me, it's not. I don't do community service because I feel better afterwards, even though it can be emotionally rewarding, I do it because I should, because they need it, and I need to quit looking after myself and help others whenever I can.
Ryo, I was trying to write ripostes to your comments, but I can only make what I mean understandable by saying that a majority of your comments are ex post facto, they're after the fact, just because something happened in the future and was beneficial didn't mean that was the objective all along. Whether you think it's subconscious or not.
I would be VERY cautious in starting a war simply because the government was "tyrannical and abusing the people". Remember that like many things in life... War is a slippery slope that can go wildly out of control. Next thing you know we start barging in on every country saying "we are in charge" and next thing you know... WE become the tyrannical government that we were trying to stop!
And lets not forget that stiring up a hornets nest will lead us to getting stung, either through terrorist actions or political stuff.
as stated before we should solve our current problems (Iraq) and even then wait till there is several countries that feel the same way. We cant do what we did in Iraq and say "Screw you, we are goin in!"... we have to wait for backing from the UN/other countries or else we risk ruining the US's reputation even more.
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Feb 15 2004, 10:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Feb 15 2004, 10:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Come to my city, then visit the surrounding cities in a 300 mile radius, and tell me whose facts are screwed up.
I dont care about numbers, and untill the % poverty in the united states is 0.0% I will not change my views. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you don't care about numbers, then don't post false ones. Making up statistics then not retracting when other people point out your falsehoods is an excellent way to make MonsE smash posting rights in Discussion...
In 5,000 years of recorded history, can someone point a time when 0.0% of people lived outside of poverty, crime, etc. in any country or land? If the prerequisite for helping others was that you had completely eliminated your own problems, no one would ever be helped. America has far more of everything than it needs - why should we not try to help others as well?
Europeans last year spent <a href='http://www.cellular.co.za/news_2003/101503-mobile_gaming_grows_to_eur_6_bil.htm' target='_blank'>6 billion EUR ($7B USD) on <i>mobile phone games</i> </a>. Are you going to tell me that the people have their priorities straight?
If the wealthy countries of the world do not try to elimininate the dictatorships, poverty, disease, and crime in the rest of the world, the gap of hatred that gave us 9/11 will simply get wider. However, if everytime a dictator came to power he was immediately smart-bombed out of existence, I think you'd see a lot fewer people trying to do it. Totalitarianism exists because of the apathy of the West - sticking your head in the sand isn't going to help anyone (including your own country, as 3000 dead WTC victims can attest to).
<!--QuoteBegin-Ryo-Ohki+Feb 15 2004, 09:18 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Feb 15 2004, 09:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There are of course exceptions to this rule; a soldier leaping atop a grenade to save his comrades for example. But they are so rare as to warrent special attention whenever we read or hear about them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Rare? Surely. But those selfless actions are the only ones consistantly glorified in every culture of the world. The entire human population holds itself to a higher standard than selfishness, and honors the memories of those who committed their life to service. Mother Teresa? Mahatma Gandhi? Jesus of Nazareth?
The mere fact that such a deep emotional impact occurs when someone is on the recieveing end of an act of service is a testament to how important those are, and if special attention is to be given to anything, it should be those acts of selfless service.
You cant kill a weed if you dont get at it's roots.
Fix the government and the civilians will be fixed as well. Try to fix the civilians and they'll just get poor again. This is why i dont phone up a organization and give X amount of $ to Y village. Instead, if I could somehow do something to fix the root of the problem, the government, i would.
Nothing like a assasination on a dictator to set things in motion... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> which is what, imo, governments should do. send in a highly trained operative to kill the country's government. the government(s) that sent the operative could then take control of the situation and try to fix the problem.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and possibly the best one i've found pertaining to this post on <a href='http://www.quotationspage.com/' target='_blank'>www.quotationspage.com</a>: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The problem of power is how to achieve its responsible use rather than its irresponsible and indulgent use - of how to get men of power to live for the public rather than off the public. Robert F. Kennedy (1925 - 1968), 'I Remember, I Believe,' The Pursuit of Justice, 1964<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-MonsieurEvil+Feb 15 2004, 02:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Feb 15 2004, 02:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Feb 15 2004, 10:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Feb 15 2004, 10:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Come to my city, then visit the surrounding cities in a 300 mile radius, and tell me whose facts are screwed up.
I dont care about numbers, and untill the % poverty in the united states is 0.0% I will not change my views. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you don't care about numbers, then don't post false ones. Making up statistics then not retracting when other people point out your falsehoods is an excellent way to make MonsE smash posting rights in Discussion...
In 5,000 years of recorded history, can someone point a time when 0.0% of people lived outside of poverty, crime, etc. in any country or land? If the prerequisite for helping others was that you had completely eliminated your own problems, no one would ever be helped. America has far more of everything than it needs - why should we not try to help others as well?
Europeans last year spent <a href='http://www.cellular.co.za/news_2003/101503-mobile_gaming_grows_to_eur_6_bil.htm' target='_blank'>6 billion EUR ($7B USD) on <i>mobile phone games</i> </a>. Are you going to tell me that the people have their priorities straight?
If the wealthy countries of the world do not try to elimininate the dictatorships, poverty, disease, and crime in the rest of the world, the gap of hatred that gave us 9/11 will simply get wider. However, if everytime a dictator came to power he was immediately smart-bombed out of existence, I think you'd see a lot fewer people trying to do it. Totalitarianism exists because of the apathy of the West - sticking your head in the sand isn't going to help anyone (including your own country, as 3000 dead WTC victims can attest to). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I swear I read it in newsweek. Numbers aren't what are important to me. I should've rephrased that. I used numbers because its all anyone listens to here, and as I have severely derailed the original discussion I'll stop posting here
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Feb 15 2004, 03:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Feb 15 2004, 03:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Ryo-Ohki+Feb 15 2004, 09:18 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Feb 15 2004, 09:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There are of course exceptions to this rule; a soldier leaping atop a grenade to save his comrades for example. But they are so rare as to warrent special attention whenever we read or hear about them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Rare? Surely. But those selfless actions are the only ones consistantly glorified in every culture of the world. The entire human population holds itself to a higher standard than selfishness, and honors the memories of those who committed their life to service. Mother Teresa? Mahatma Gandhi? Jesus of Nazareth?
The mere fact that such a deep emotional impact occurs when someone is on the recieveing end of an act of service is a testament to how important those are, and if special attention is to be given to anything, it should be those acts of selfless service. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> See, you people are taking philosophical views that can be argued either way. So you might as well stop now.
Ryo-Ohki and Legionaired: you're taking a stance (whether you know it or not) based on egoism (an idea that everything is done for the self). It's main face would be Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679). Assume you're saving someone from a buring vehicle, Hobbes would argue, no matter what you say, you were doing it for yourself:
if you said: "I recognized that it was my duty to try and save her" you saved her to uphold your morals of duty (and possibly impose them on others.
"I know that family, and I love that person." you saved her out of love, a desire to keep your social ties alive and well, and possibly improve them by saving that person.
"I didn't want people to think I was a coward." you saved her for your reputation (and it's fairly obvious this is actually selfish.
"I saw that she would die if I hadn't gone in to save her!" you saved her out of responsibility, and your morals of responsibility, and to inforce them within yourself.
(there's actually a huge list of them, going from selfish Altruism to blatant Egoism - Does the Center Hold? - An introduction into Western Philosophy. Donald Palmer. 1996. (page 246-250)).
It's important to note that Egoism can not be refuted. Your own opinions may disagree with it, but there exists no scientific test to prove whether someone did something for oneself...and therefore Egoism can never be directly proved or refuted. This also presents the problem with Hobbes' theory, as it states that EVERYTHING is self motivating, which is far to covering. That's to say, no one ever, in the history of the universe did anything selfless. But, that makes this theory to broad, and unapplicable...a theory that covers everything is no theory at all. In order for a theory to be legitimate, it needs to have the possibility of being proven false (like gravity, if we saw things that are heavier than air rising spontaneously, we'd know gravity was wrong).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the mind is too open, everything falls out.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course, the alternate end of the spectrum is Altruism (or 'otherism') is that ocassionally we do perform (...heh, it was we do do at first <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->) selfless acts. It's hard to think a soldier jumping on a hand-grenade would be being selfish...in fact, the only applicable egoism you could fit would be "Maybe I will win a medal if I jump on this grenade and save these guys." or "I can end my pitiful existance in this world by jumping on this grenade."
The problem with egoism here is: almost no one would think these things while they're jumping onto a grenade that's about to blow their friends up. Of course, you can't disprove the egoism statements, sooo...it's all up to your own philisophical view point...so don't try to argue it anymore.
Everyone's morals are different, accept your own, and that they may or may not coincide with other peoples. So....off with the morals, on with the liberation (or lack thereof).
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
edited February 2004
Point MonsE, but how would you decide who is the dictator or not? Becuase .gov said so? Someone on the news? Not a flame, mind you, honest question. And on the other hand, if we simply go around killing at will, we become a lot like the despots we are swearing to stop, don't we? That might make them hate us even more than they did before.
Even bigger question: Given that governments are self-serving <DELETED FOR GOOD OF FORUM-KIND>s, would you BELIEVE them (Also see first question posted.) that you're there to actually liberate those people and make thier lives better, as opposed to political gain? How much convincing would it take?
So...if we are all caring individuals who want to help everyone else, why does socialism fail?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Rare? Surely. But those selfless actions are the only ones consistantly glorified in every culture of the world. The entire human population holds itself to a higher standard than selfishness, and honors the memories of those who committed their life to service. Mother Teresa? Mahatma Gandhi? Jesus of Nazareth?
The mere fact that such a deep emotional impact occurs when someone is on the recieveing end of an act of service is a testament to how important those are, and if special attention is to be given to anything, it should be those acts of selfless service. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which merely serves to illustrate my point. Selfless acts are so rare, and the individuals who carry them out just as uncommon, that they become quite famous and can even form the basis for religions or cults. We are so amazed by them because these acts are so contrary to our nature; if selflessness was commonplace, like Sirus claims, such acts as the story of Jesus giving his life for humanity or Mother Theresa devoting her life to helping others would hardly warrent our attention.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Dread and Ryo, I'm sorry that you have such a superficial view of individuals. Ryo, your view is completely superficial in every point you make, not every friendship is a selfish desire, I don't know about you, but I make sacrifices in my relationships, that's the opposite of selfishness, I actually lose something so that my friend gains something. In the end, yes, we both are good friends, good relationship and enjoy eachother's company, but it's not because we were being selfish. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course you make some sacrifices, I never said otherwise. My point is that you are getting something back: companionship and emotional support. You make those sacrifices because you want to continue to gain the advantages that an alliance with someone else brings. You are acting in your own interests, and are therefore selfish.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not true. A mother pulls her children away from a burning car because she loves them, you can call it whatever you want, just because there's another positive reward for doing that act doesn't mean that was the original intent. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Her emotions (such as love) are based upon her genes. Like I said, mothers that did not have a gentic disposition towards caring for their young did not pass their genes on and thus died out. The love a mother feels is the result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. And it is based around an entirely selfish and self-serving aim: to pass on your genes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To most of you, I'm sorry you live with a sorry attitude, you don't want to help people, you don't care about anyone that can't really help you out. I honestly can't even find the words to express what I'm thinking. I'm so completely confused that people are so selfish that you honestly don't care and you live with such apathy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who said we didn't want to help people? I spoke at length about humanity being a social species and part of being a social species is aiding others in the group. My point is that the assisstence rendered benefits the individual: you help someone out, they're indebted to you. Alliances can be formed in such ways. You could help someone and in the eyes of the community, your social standing rises (such as giving alms at church). This benefits the individual again (others may be more willing to help a generous individual).
Does all this mean that I don't care? No; I care for others and assist them just like almost everyone else in society. Simply because I understand on a fundemental level why such actions are carried out doesn't mean that I stop doing them. In fact, I feel a lot more comfortable knowing that I am a member of a selfish species and that our communities are built around individual benefits; it means I'm not trying to delude myself against the truth.
Finally, I don't really consider any of this a negative. Yeah we're selfish: so what? We've got 5,000 years of history built around selfishness, and in that time a magnificant rich tapestry of culture has emerged, including art, music, literature, religion, science and architecture. Everything we've accomplished as a species and as individuals has been based around serving our own desires and wants, but that's not a bad thing. It's what we are.
Comments
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I donate money to charity organistions, but that's my money. I can use it how I see fit. My government is there to help me, not people elsewhere. Why should the money we, the citizens, are paying go towards helping people in other nations?
However... "Converts make the most fanatical followers"
(The question should be more "Would you be willing to FIGHT a war of liberation" it's easy to sit back, and support a war with words safe in your own home, watching the news over dinner while others turn each other inside out. Backing those words and ideals with actions is a different matter entirely, something I think may have been lost on some.)
Then again, I don't see a point in fearing death, as it is inevitable (not suicidal though, searching for death: bad, accepting that death is not avoidable: good <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
In fact, I want to join the army to help pay for my college tuition...but I can't.
You must be living on a different plane. Not to mention, your opinion doesn't really make any sense. If everyone was selfish, everyone would be dead, including you. If your mother was selfish, and didn't love you, you would probably dead. She could've had an abortion, and you would be dead, or she could have given birth to you and drowned you, or left along the side of a road... et cetera et cetera. It's easier on a mother to not have children if they're truely self-centered.
The only reason people ever have a chance to live and let live is because of selflessness. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
My mom is selfish, you are selfish and I am selfish. We are animals afterall. My mother didn't get an abortion because she would've felt awfully bad afterwards. Someone gives money to charity only because it makes them feel good. The fact that some poor child gets a sweater doesn't have anything to do with it. He's still being selfish.
Though, now we are being totally OT. My apologies for that.
And don't get me wrong, like I said before, you should get your own problems fixed and then you can help others, if that's what the majority of the people want.
And all of this would further depend on honest intentions, which we havn't had in regard to foreign affairs since who knows when.
The only reason people ever have a chance to live and let live is because of selflessness. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Human beings, like every other organism on the planet, are out for themselves. We are selfish; almost everything we do is for personal benefit in one way, shape or form. Your mother didn't have a child because it's the selfless thing to do; she was driven by a genetic urge to procreate, as is every organism. It's in an individuals' personal interest to pass on their genes; nothing selfless about that. Indeed it's quite selfish. She cared for you for the same reason: wishing to see her genes passed on, because obviously her child has to procreate as well in order for this to fully occur. Of course she did not consiously think that through; she would say she loves you. Which is an emotion derived from your genes. Women who did not have a genetic urge to care for their children did not pass on their genes, and as such died out.
We may live in societies and communities, but that doesn't make us any less selfish. A farmer grows some crops. Is he growing them because he cares for people who may starve? Of course not; he grows them so his family will have something to eat, and to produce money to buy himself, and his family, commerical goods. He helps his family again because he's genetically inclined to. He can chose not to of course, in which case his genes might not be passed on as his family may die. His emotions are telling him not to do that.
A citizen pays some taxes. Does he do this because he feels it is benefiting the community over all? No; he does it because the consequenses, for him, are dire if he does not. The benefits of living in a community, such as security, government and greater access to commerce and services also make living with others adventageous. The man may provide a service, but like the farmer he's doing it for his own ends, not everyone elses. In a community, the man can exploit the services of others to suppliment his lifestyle.
Two people form a friendship. Such bonds are everywhere amongst humans, ranging from marriage to casual friends. Do we seek out the companionship of others because we feel it is the selfless thing to do? No, we, as individuals, wish to exploit others. A husband exploits his wife as a vessal for his child. A friend expolits her friend by discussing a problem with her, thus gaining support. A man and a woman start a relationship but refrain from having children. Yet the bond has benefits: the two can tackle problems together; resources can be pooled; the skills of each partner can suppliment the skills of the other. Both are out for their own personal gain, but they understand the value of alliances.
All humans understand that alliances can bring great benefits, as do animals such as chimpanzees, baboons, dolphins or indeed any animal that spends a lot of time in groups or packs. Individuals working together bring greater benefits to the individuals within that group: a pack of wolves for example can bring down prey that alone they could not tackle, thus giving the individuals a meal they otherwise would not have had. Likewise a community of people can produce benefits for individuals, ranging from a group of hunters able to bring down an elephant to great nations able to control vast regions and the resources contained therein.
That's what mankind is: a selfish species. We only help others when there is something in it for us. A mother pulls her children from a burning car because she wants to save her genetic carriers. A politician promises tax cuts because he knows he will gain voter support, which has the potential to keep him in office. A person donates to a charity organistion so he or she can feel emotionally better, or perhaps they can claim it against taxes, or they can tell their friends they undertake such acts, thus elevating them within the social structure.
There are of course exceptions to this rule; a soldier leaping atop a grenade to save his comrades for example. But they are so rare as to warrent special attention whenever we read or hear about them.
And Dread, I don't think we are being OT by discussing this. After all, this whole topic is ment to examine if we would undertake a fairly selfless act. Understanding our own nature is fundamental to answering that question.
Some of the follow on posts have helped reinforce a small faith in humanity.But the majority still disgust me. I guess we should not intervene in Kosovo, in Rwanda, in Liberia, in Haiti - and those just in the last 10 years. After all, let the mudpeople of the earth die, what do we care after all, it doesn't affect us at all. They probably deserved it anyways - I bet they want a strong dictatorship to keep their lives rigid and controlled too. You know, the same way a tiger likes living in a zoo cage. Perfectly natural. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Come to my city, then visit the surrounding cities in a 300 mile radius, and tell me whose facts are screwed up.
I dont care about numbers, and untill the % poverty in the united states is 0.0% I will not change my views.
Actually, being generous is usually more rewarding in most situations. If everyone was generous and selfless not only would they be helping other people as they should, but they would actually have their desires met by other people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's what mankind is: a selfish species. We only help others when there is something in it for us. A mother pulls her children from a burning car because she wants to save her genetic carriers. A politician promises tax cuts because he knows he will gain voter support, which has the potential to keep him in office. A person donates to a charity organistion so he or she can feel emotionally better, or perhaps they can claim it against taxes, or they can tell their friends they undertake such acts, thus elevating them within the social structure<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true. A mother pulls her children away from a burning car because she loves them, you can call it whatever you want, just because there's another positive reward for doing that act doesn't mean that was the original intent.
To most of you, I'm sorry you live with a sorry attitude, you don't want to help people, you don't care about anyone that can't really help you out. I honestly can't even find the words to express what I'm thinking. I'm so completely confused that people are so selfish that you honestly don't care and you live with such apathy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My mom is selfish, you are selfish and I am selfish. We are animals afterall. My mother didn't get an abortion because she would've felt awfully bad afterwards. Someone gives money to charity only because it makes them feel good. The fact that some poor child gets a sweater doesn't have anything to do with it. He's still being selfish.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What we have here is two people with two completely true statements, for you, that's true. For me, it's not. I don't do community service because I feel better afterwards, even though it can be emotionally rewarding, I do it because I should, because they need it, and I need to quit looking after myself and help others whenever I can.
Ryo, I was trying to write ripostes to your comments, but I can only make what I mean understandable by saying that a majority of your comments are ex post facto, they're after the fact, just because something happened in the future and was beneficial didn't mean that was the objective all along. Whether you think it's subconscious or not.
And lets not forget that stiring up a hornets nest will lead us to getting stung, either through terrorist actions or political stuff.
as stated before we should solve our current problems (Iraq) and even then wait till there is several countries that feel the same way. We cant do what we did in Iraq and say "Screw you, we are goin in!"... we have to wait for backing from the UN/other countries or else we risk ruining the US's reputation even more.
I dont care about numbers, and untill the % poverty in the united states is 0.0% I will not change my views. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you don't care about numbers, then don't post false ones. Making up statistics then not retracting when other people point out your falsehoods is an excellent way to make MonsE smash posting rights in Discussion...
In 5,000 years of recorded history, can someone point a time when 0.0% of people lived outside of poverty, crime, etc. in any country or land? If the prerequisite for helping others was that you had completely eliminated your own problems, no one would ever be helped. America has far more of everything than it needs - why should we not try to help others as well?
Europeans last year spent <a href='http://www.cellular.co.za/news_2003/101503-mobile_gaming_grows_to_eur_6_bil.htm' target='_blank'>6 billion EUR ($7B USD) on <i>mobile phone games</i> </a>. Are you going to tell me that the people have their priorities straight?
If the wealthy countries of the world do not try to elimininate the dictatorships, poverty, disease, and crime in the rest of the world, the gap of hatred that gave us 9/11 will simply get wider. However, if everytime a dictator came to power he was immediately smart-bombed out of existence, I think you'd see a lot fewer people trying to do it. Totalitarianism exists because of the apathy of the West - sticking your head in the sand isn't going to help anyone (including your own country, as 3000 dead WTC victims can attest to).
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rare? Surely. But those selfless actions are the only ones consistantly glorified in every culture of the world. The entire human population holds itself to a higher standard than selfishness, and honors the memories of those who committed their life to service. Mother Teresa? Mahatma Gandhi? Jesus of Nazareth?
The mere fact that such a deep emotional impact occurs when someone is on the recieveing end of an act of service is a testament to how important those are, and if special attention is to be given to anything, it should be those acts of selfless service.
Fix the government and the civilians will be fixed as well. Try to fix the civilians and they'll just get poor again. This is why i dont phone up a organization and give X amount of $ to Y village. Instead, if I could somehow do something to fix the root of the problem, the government, i would.
Nothing like a assasination on a dictator to set things in motion... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> which is what, imo, governments should do. send in a highly trained operative to kill the country's government. the government(s) that sent the operative could then take control of the situation and try to fix the problem.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and possibly the best one i've found pertaining to this post on <a href='http://www.quotationspage.com/' target='_blank'>www.quotationspage.com</a>:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The problem of power is how to achieve its responsible use rather than its irresponsible and indulgent use - of how to get men of power to live for the public rather than off the public.
Robert F. Kennedy (1925 - 1968), 'I Remember, I Believe,' The Pursuit of Justice, 1964<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heh. Gotta love quotationspage.com...
I dont care about numbers, and untill the % poverty in the united states is 0.0% I will not change my views. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you don't care about numbers, then don't post false ones. Making up statistics then not retracting when other people point out your falsehoods is an excellent way to make MonsE smash posting rights in Discussion...
In 5,000 years of recorded history, can someone point a time when 0.0% of people lived outside of poverty, crime, etc. in any country or land? If the prerequisite for helping others was that you had completely eliminated your own problems, no one would ever be helped. America has far more of everything than it needs - why should we not try to help others as well?
Europeans last year spent <a href='http://www.cellular.co.za/news_2003/101503-mobile_gaming_grows_to_eur_6_bil.htm' target='_blank'>6 billion EUR ($7B USD) on <i>mobile phone games</i> </a>. Are you going to tell me that the people have their priorities straight?
If the wealthy countries of the world do not try to elimininate the dictatorships, poverty, disease, and crime in the rest of the world, the gap of hatred that gave us 9/11 will simply get wider. However, if everytime a dictator came to power he was immediately smart-bombed out of existence, I think you'd see a lot fewer people trying to do it. Totalitarianism exists because of the apathy of the West - sticking your head in the sand isn't going to help anyone (including your own country, as 3000 dead WTC victims can attest to). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I swear I read it in newsweek. Numbers aren't what are important to me. I should've rephrased that. I used numbers because its all anyone listens to here, and as I have severely derailed the original discussion I'll stop posting here
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rare? Surely. But those selfless actions are the only ones consistantly glorified in every culture of the world. The entire human population holds itself to a higher standard than selfishness, and honors the memories of those who committed their life to service. Mother Teresa? Mahatma Gandhi? Jesus of Nazareth?
The mere fact that such a deep emotional impact occurs when someone is on the recieveing end of an act of service is a testament to how important those are, and if special attention is to be given to anything, it should be those acts of selfless service. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, you people are taking philosophical views that can be argued either way. So you might as well stop now.
Ryo-Ohki and Legionaired: you're taking a stance (whether you know it or not) based on egoism (an idea that everything is done for the self). It's main face would be Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679). Assume you're saving someone from a buring vehicle, Hobbes would argue, no matter what you say, you were doing it for yourself:
if you said:
"I recognized that it was my duty to try and save her" you saved her to uphold your morals of duty (and possibly impose them on others.
"I know that family, and I love that person." you saved her out of love, a desire to keep your social ties alive and well, and possibly improve them by saving that person.
"I didn't want people to think I was a coward." you saved her for your reputation (and it's fairly obvious this is actually selfish.
"I saw that she would die if I hadn't gone in to save her!" you saved her out of responsibility, and your morals of responsibility, and to inforce them within yourself.
(there's actually a huge list of them, going from selfish Altruism to blatant Egoism - Does the Center Hold? - An introduction into Western Philosophy. Donald Palmer. 1996. (page 246-250)).
It's important to note that Egoism can not be refuted. Your own opinions may disagree with it, but there exists no scientific test to prove whether someone did something for oneself...and therefore Egoism can never be directly proved or refuted. This also presents the problem with Hobbes' theory, as it states that EVERYTHING is self motivating, which is far to covering. That's to say, no one ever, in the history of the universe did anything selfless. But, that makes this theory to broad, and unapplicable...a theory that covers everything is no theory at all. In order for a theory to be legitimate, it needs to have the possibility of being proven false (like gravity, if we saw things that are heavier than air rising spontaneously, we'd know gravity was wrong).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the mind is too open, everything falls out.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course, the alternate end of the spectrum is Altruism (or 'otherism') is that ocassionally we do perform (...heh, it was we do do at first <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->) selfless acts. It's hard to think a soldier jumping on a hand-grenade would be being selfish...in fact, the only applicable egoism you could fit would be "Maybe I will win a medal if I jump on this grenade and save these guys." or "I can end my pitiful existance in this world by jumping on this grenade."
The problem with egoism here is: almost no one would think these things while they're jumping onto a grenade that's about to blow their friends up. Of course, you can't disprove the egoism statements, sooo...it's all up to your own philisophical view point...so don't try to argue it anymore.
Everyone's morals are different, accept your own, and that they may or may not coincide with other peoples. So....off with the morals, on with the liberation (or lack thereof).
Even bigger question: Given that governments are self-serving <DELETED FOR GOOD OF FORUM-KIND>s, would you BELIEVE them (Also see first question posted.) that you're there to actually liberate those people and make thier lives better, as opposed to political gain? How much convincing would it take?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Rare? Surely. But those selfless actions are the only ones consistantly glorified in every culture of the world. The entire human population holds itself to a higher standard than selfishness, and honors the memories of those who committed their life to service. Mother Teresa? Mahatma Gandhi? Jesus of Nazareth?
The mere fact that such a deep emotional impact occurs when someone is on the recieveing end of an act of service is a testament to how important those are, and if special attention is to be given to anything, it should be those acts of selfless service. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which merely serves to illustrate my point. Selfless acts are so rare, and the individuals who carry them out just as uncommon, that they become quite famous and can even form the basis for religions or cults. We are so amazed by them because these acts are so contrary to our nature; if selflessness was commonplace, like Sirus claims, such acts as the story of Jesus giving his life for humanity or Mother Theresa devoting her life to helping others would hardly warrent our attention.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Dread and Ryo, I'm sorry that you have such a superficial view of individuals. Ryo, your view is completely superficial in every point you make, not every friendship is a selfish desire, I don't know about you, but I make sacrifices in my relationships, that's the opposite of selfishness, I actually lose something so that my friend gains something. In the end, yes, we both are good friends, good relationship and enjoy eachother's company, but it's not because we were being selfish.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course you make some sacrifices, I never said otherwise. My point is that you are getting something back: companionship and emotional support. You make those sacrifices because you want to continue to gain the advantages that an alliance with someone else brings. You are acting in your own interests, and are therefore selfish.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not true. A mother pulls her children away from a burning car because she loves them, you can call it whatever you want, just because there's another positive reward for doing that act doesn't mean that was the original intent.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Her emotions (such as love) are based upon her genes. Like I said, mothers that did not have a gentic disposition towards caring for their young did not pass their genes on and thus died out. The love a mother feels is the result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. And it is based around an entirely selfish and self-serving aim: to pass on your genes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To most of you, I'm sorry you live with a sorry attitude, you don't want to help people, you don't care about anyone that can't really help you out. I honestly can't even find the words to express what I'm thinking. I'm so completely confused that people are so selfish that you honestly don't care and you live with such apathy.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who said we didn't want to help people? I spoke at length about humanity being a social species and part of being a social species is aiding others in the group. My point is that the assisstence rendered benefits the individual: you help someone out, they're indebted to you. Alliances can be formed in such ways. You could help someone and in the eyes of the community, your social standing rises (such as giving alms at church). This benefits the individual again (others may be more willing to help a generous individual).
Does all this mean that I don't care? No; I care for others and assist them just like almost everyone else in society. Simply because I understand on a fundemental level why such actions are carried out doesn't mean that I stop doing them. In fact, I feel a lot more comfortable knowing that I am a member of a selfish species and that our communities are built around individual benefits; it means I'm not trying to delude myself against the truth.
Finally, I don't really consider any of this a negative. Yeah we're selfish: so what? We've got 5,000 years of history built around selfishness, and in that time a magnificant rich tapestry of culture has emerged, including art, music, literature, religion, science and architecture. Everything we've accomplished as a species and as individuals has been based around serving our own desires and wants, but that's not a bad thing. It's what we are.