I don't think so my friend. There's a lot of misinformation around. I trust the WHO statistics that I provided, rather than Hanover's university studies :)

I do admit that Hanover brought up some information which does put in question some of my claims. Is that bad? Not really, no. I don't want to prove my point on this matter - there's no proving as there's too much uncertainties involved - but merely offering you different perspectives :)

There's a lot of misinformation around. I trust the WHO statistics that I provided, rather than Hanover's university studies :)

I do admit that Hanover brought up some information which does put in question some of my claims. Is that bad? Not really, no. I don't want to prove my point on this matter - there's no proving as there's too much uncertainties involved - but merely offering you different perspectives :) — Agustino

Even if we accepted the WHO data as gospel (and note that the article I cited performed the same DALY analysis as WHO and achieved very different results), it states, "Data on the relative prevalence of major depression among different ethnic groups have reached no clear consensus. However, the only known study to have covered dysthymia specifically found it to be more common in African and Mexican Americans than in European Americans." This is an indication that the poorer minority groups in the US are driving depression stats up, contrary to your claim that wealth is the cause of depression.

To the specific question of whether those in poverty are more depressed than those not in poverty in the US, the answer is clearly that they are, with a rate double those not in poverty. http://www.gallup.com/poll/158417/poverty-comes-depression-illness.aspx

I don't want to prove my point on this matter — Agustino

Why don't you want to prove your point?

and note that the article I cited performed the same DALY analysis as WHO and achieved very different results — Hanover

Yes which is my point. Those studies are biased, many of them. Pretty much all of social sciences are biased because 90% of social scientists are liberal-left-wingers, and most of the studies are undertaken by people coming from developed countries. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/why-are-so-many-social-scientists-left-liberal-1.2082755

Let's take a frequently done study. The effect of the frequency of sexual activity on happiness in a population of unmarried females. Most of these studies reveal increases of happiness which match increases in sexual activity. However - they are done amongst population where sex before marriage is considered acceptable and encouraged. Instead of realising that their conclusion (frequent sex leads to more happiness) applies amongst only a certain population group (where sex before marriage is valued and encouraged), they say it applies across all of humanity. But this is not true - sex before marriage in a religious community is often a frequent cause of sadness, thus illustrating that these relationships are necessarily culturally mediated, with no one culture being superior to the other - and therefore no such generalisations can be drawn.

Why don't you want to prove your point? — Hanover

Because data is necessarily biased, and "proving" a point is pretty much impossible. Offering alternatives is what is possible. I have reasons to believe what I wrote, which I could outline, but no way to prove that I am right beyond reasonable doubt.

To the specific question of whether those in poverty are more depressed than those not in poverty in the US, the answer is clearly that they are, with a rate double those not in poverty. http://www.gallup.com/poll/158417/poverty-comes-depression-illness.aspx — Hanover

There's potential problems. The poor of the US are rich in other parts of the world. They may be more depressed because they come in contact with people who have a lot more than them, thus making them feel inferior, etc. It still doesn't follow that they are poor by absolute standards.

If you google "altruism" you'll find that the common definition includes both, but I'll just use a synonym instead. — Sapientia

Nothing wrong with using google for factual matters, but for a philosophical discussion, it's lacking. Altruism is a moral system. I think I've made clear I'm not making a moral claim per se. I don't think those who put their interest first are immoral, and have even pointed out that I wouldn't morally judge anybody whose survival is at stake for trying to survive. I might criticize his courage but not his morality. Put another way, I might praise the courage of somebody who puts the interests of other before himself even when his survival is at stake. That's not an uncommon feeling we have all the time.

Putting the interests of others ahead of one's own is a better way to live. It isn't a more moral way to live. So I don't considerate my formulation (which is just the Apostle Paul's in fact) altruism at all.

The only part that I'm rejecting as false is your claim that it's true at all times for all people. (That is, "To be selfless is to live a better life" or something similarly worded to that effect).

I understand and acknowledge that people struggling to survive aren't likely to prioritise morality. The starving child that steals a loaf of bread from a relatively well-off baker is excused in my book. But, again, a sophisticated view will take context into consideration. Whether or not an act typically considered to be immoral is excusable given the circumstances will depend upon those circumstances. The struggle to survive typically won't excuse rape, for example. — Sapientia

I think I've made clear that I don't begrudge people pursuing their self-interest. I've simply pointed out that putting others self-interest ahead of one's own results in a better richer way to live. I don't even think that's controversial - I've rarely seen anybody praise somebody for promoting his self-interest, except maybe in the ugly realm of rightwing politics. Even there it's usually rationalized as really a benefit for others (he made a billion dollars producing a really good product!)

In any case, my claim is based on the premise that the unexamined life in not worth living. It is an existential claim, not a moral one. My experience is that self-interested people live unexamined lives and are childish, shallow, and boring. For all I know they may be more moral than others and provide a great benefit to society on a utilitarian level. That's the theory of capitalism at any rate, which is why capitalism tend to produce childish people. My position doesn't exclude working for a future or carrying on the usual business of life. Rather it is an attitude that comes from self-examination the puts this into context.

Finally, I am serious about not morally judging those who are put in situations where survival is at stake, no matter how ugly their actions. You seem ambivalent in that regard. Some Jewish inmates in concentration camps collaborated with the Nazis in order to get an extra piece of bread or to stay alive one more day. An ugly action. (The current movie Son of Saul is about this). But I refuse to morally denounce those people since I can't imagine the horror of their situation, a situation not of their own making. I can judge them as cowards or as unempathetic or or as dangerous to others. But not immoral. Nobody should morally judge others who find themselves in extremis for decision they did not make. Now contrast that with the Nazi victimizers and we have a different calculation.

But I refuse to morally denounce those people since I can't imagine the horror of their situation. I can judge them as cowards or as unempathetic or or as dangerous to others. But not immoral. Nobody should morally judge others who find themselves in extremis for reasons not of their own making. — Landru Guide Us

You should denounce them - a traitor is a traitor. There is no excuse for immoral behavior. Probably I would be a traitor too, if I was in their shoes. But there's no excuse for me either. What is wrong, is wrong.

You should denounce them - a traitor is a traitor. There is no excuse for immoral behavior. Probably I would be a traitor too, if I was in their shoes. But there's no excuse for me either. What is wrong, is wrong. — Agustino

You're either trolling or you simply not given to moral introspection. Take your pick

All of this is just to point out two things (1) you've done no research and have misstated all the relevant facts related to your argument, and (2) poverty does not lead to morality, happiness, and a good, solid life.

Poverty creates all sorts of challenges, many of which lead to failed relationships, drug and alcohol abuse, crime, violence, teenage pregnancy, reduced education, depression, and general hopelessness. There may be a certain vacuousness to the lives of the rich and famous, but no one really believes that those lives are more difficult than those residing in public housing. — Hanover

This ^

You're either trolling or you simply not given to moral introspection. Take your pick — Landru Guide Us

No I am given to moral introspection. But look Landru. If I sell my wife in slavery in order to save my life, I have still done something immoral. The reason why I sold my wife doesn't change that. The fact that I can't stop myself from selling my wife in that case has to do with my own personal weakness, and can in no way justify the action as moral. So a priori both me and you will agree that the action is most certainly not moral. However, we disagree if it's immoral. Notice that there is no disagreement in regards to its morality, we both agree that for certain it's not moral. But there is certainly disagreement in regards to its immorality. Why do you think this is?

Furthermore, extreme situations, such as being forced in a labor camp, are the only situations which show who is truly moral and who isn't. Most of us fake being moral. At least if we fake it, let us not defend the fakery, and admit to the truth. At least that much we can do. Why shall we deceive even ourselves? What is the point of that nonsense? I am immoral. Okay. Not a problem. But let me at least be aware of it, and keep it keenly in mind. It's despicable how so many people pretend to morality, while in truth they are venomous snakes. The world would be a much better place if we didn't RATIONALISE our failings, but admitted them to be exactly that: failures. We've built a culture which only rationalises our failures and nothing else.

No I am given to moral introspection. But look Landru. If I sell my wife in slavery in order to save my life, I have still done something immoral. — Agustino

You're like Ben Carson blaming the victims of mass shootings for not "rushing" the gun man.

You have no idea what you would do when your life is threatened by somebody with power over you. It's intellectual absurd to claim otherwise. You will do what you do based on where you are in life as you face a horrible situation not of your own making. I would call somebody who sold his wife into slavery at pain of death cowardly or less heroic than somebody who didn't (I think it's curious that this is exactly what Abraham did, whether you are aware of that or not). But not immoral. That's especially true if you lived to do something about it, rather than just got yourself killed and have your wife sold into slavery anyway. That's stupid (but also not immoral). I would save the charge of immorality for the person forcing the choice on you. He's the immoral one.

Your inability to see the difference suggests a very defective moral system.

You have no idea what you would do when your life is threatened by somebody with power over you. It's intellectual absurd to claim otherwise. You will do what you do based on where you are in life as you face a horrible situation not of your own making. I would call somebody who sold his wife into slavery at pain of death cowardly or less heroic than somebody who didn't (I think it's curious that this is exactly what Abraham did, whether you are aware of that or not). But not immoral. That's especially true if you lived to do something about it, rather than just got yourself killed and have your wife sold into slavery anyway. That's stupid (but also not immoral). I would save the charge of immorality for the person forcing the choice on you. He's the immoral one. — Landru Guide Us

There is no difference Landru. It's still a failure to live up to my moral standards. I know I won't be able to in those circumstances, but that's because Im a coward, and I admit to it... How can there be a difference? Does being forced to make a decision make it different? Does my life being threatened make it different? What is it that makes it different?

There is no difference Landru. It's still a failure to live up to my moral standards. I know I won't be able to in those circumstances, but that's because Im a coward, and I admit to it... How can there be a difference? Does being forced to make a decision make it different? Does my life being threatened make it different? What is it that makes it different? — Agustino

Yeah, well, there we have it. If your moral system can't tell the difference between a Nazi and a Jewish victim struggling to survive the horrors of Nazism, it really isn't worth much. This is what happens once you go down the road of rightwing thinking

Yeah, well, there we have it. If your moral system can't tell the difference between a Nazi and a Jewish victim struggling to survive the horrors of Nazism, it really isn't worth much. This is what happens once you go down the road of rightwing thinking — Landru Guide Us

One is committing immorality by forcing the other one to make a decision, the other one is committing immorality by sacrificing their family/friends for their own survival. Both are immoral, to different degrees, of course.

You should denounce them - a traitor is a traitor. There is no excuse for immoral behavior. Probably I would be a traitor too, if I was in their shoes. But there's no excuse for me either. What is wrong, is wrong. — Agustino

One is committing immorality by forcing the other one to make a decision, the other one is committing immorality by sacrificing their family/friends for their own survival. Both are immoral, to different degrees, of course. — Agustino

There is something wrong with a moral system that allows too much slipping and sliding - rationalizing our way around moral failures, as you put it. There is also something wrong with a moral system that is rigidly black and white, and makes no exceptions.

Naturally, "a commandment like, "thou shall not kill" can not be provided by the law giver with amendments and lists of exceptions. No killing, no stealing, no lechery, no blasphemy PERIOD -- never, under any circumstances -- Is the way commandments get stated. Or laws, or moral principles. The amendments and exceptions are added by the scholars--and these are critical additions.

The scholars can say, "Never kill, except to protect the life of a spouse or child or yourself; never steal unless starvation is the alternative. If you are compelled to commit blaspheme to save yourself, it won't count against you.." and so on."

The scholars, in service to the spirit of the law giver, recognize that there are circumstances so dehumanized, so hellish, that no moral decision can be made by the victim. The concentration camp was one such place. Such places do not merely coerce one into violating one's morals, they obliterate the boundaries of all morality. Indeed, they obliterate the boundaries of the human as well.

Most of the bad situations we might find ourselves in won't be quite as bad as Auschwitz, Treblinka, or another Nazi hell hole. But we could still find ourselves in situations where the boundaries of morality and humanity were eroded enough to make moral decisions practically irrelevant.

Further, a moral system worth it's salt will provide for failure. Nobody is perfect, everybody is quite flawed. Failure to live up to the law giver's high standards will be epidemic and endemic. The wise law giver recognizes this, and provides for forgiveness and reconciliation.

Some people like the Puritan revivalist Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) expressed the hard assed approach to morality quite well:

The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked. His wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else but to be cast into the fire. He is of purer eyes than to bear you in his sight; you are ten thousand times as abominable in his eyes as the most hateful, venomous serpent is in ours.

You have offended him infinitely ... And there is no other reason to be given why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up. ...

O sinner! consider the fearful danger you are in! It is a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath that you are held over in the hand of that God whose wrath is provoked and incensed as much against you as against many of the damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of Divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it and burn it asunder. . . .

I can imagine you in a Puritan's clerical garb, uttering these sermons of unbending wrath, atheist though you may be.

If that was all there was for the Abrahamic believer (or for anybody else), severe demands that are difficult to achieve and a God who was all about scorching wrath, religion wouldn't have any followers, except a few insane fundamentalists in the Christian and Moslem branches. These folk don't have time for mercy, forgiveness, understanding, exceptions, suspension of the rules when one is in hell, and so on. It's all about failures and punishments -- kind of an S&M set up.

And it doesn't make any difference whether one is an atheist or not. Atheists can be every bit as much a rigid hater and unforgiving bastard as someone from Alabama, the Islamic State, the Taliban, or Saudi Arabia. I assume your atheism resembles the psychological state of your pre-atheistic period of belief-- it must have been pretty grim. (See Bertrand Russell for a discussion on the relationship of one's religion to one's atheism.)

Since you, yourself, are going to fail at achieving perfection, you might as well install a system of forgiveness and mercy for yourself, and those who deal with. People will d-i-s-a-p-p-o-i-n-t you, I swear to Wotan. Get ready.

Oh, one other thing: Happy New Year. Auld lang syne and all that Robert Burns.

We twa hae run about the braes,---We two have run about the slopes,
and pou’d the gowans fine;---and picked the daisies fine;
But we’ve wander’d mony a weary fit,---But we’ve wandered many a weary foot,
sin' auld lang syne.---since auld lang syne.

Your first reply has been posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution!

Oh, one other thing: Happy New Year. — Bitter Crank

Thanks, Happy New Year to you too! :)

There is also something wrong with a moral system that is rigidly black and white, and makes no exceptions. — Bitter Crank

I think you are confusing an attitude with a system, and attempting to systematise an attitude, which is something that is impossible. I will explain later on in this post.

a moral system worth it's salt will provide for failure. Nobody is perfect, everybody is quite flawed. Failure to live up to the law giver's high standards will be epidemic and endemic. The wise law giver recognizes this, and provides for forgiveness and reconciliation. — Bitter Crank

A law cannot provide for an abnegation of the law. That has to do with an attitude of the law-giver and law-enforcer.

I assume your atheism resembles the psychological state of your pre-atheistic period of belief-- it must have been pretty grim — Bitter Crank

Quite the contrary. I was raised an Orthodox Christian, and the religion, if you have read Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov for example, emphasizes forgiveness and love much more than God's wrath. In fact, in Orthodox Christianity, both sinners and saints go to the same place after death: the only difference is in the manner in which they percieve it, so the torment of the sinners is self-inflicted and not imposed by God. The sinner will merely percieve God's love as a scorching fire; but he can always stop, even after death, and become closer to God.

Ever since I was young, I was always against this system though - it gives a license to sin to people. It basically says "Look, it doesn't matter if you sin in the end, because we all sin; so don't fret about it, focus on God's love, and everything will be fine". So my attitude has never been religious. Morality is prior to religion, and is required for the proper functioning of society. My moral views came prior to my religion.

I think that the fact that you think my religious views were quite grim, and hence my post-religious views are grim implies only the fact that you think people can only emphasise the value of a rigid morality if they are to begin with religious. You think morality, in the traditional sense, requires religion. That one is motivated by religion to believe so. I don't think that at all. Quite the contrary, I disagreed with priests and everyone: God could not have given people a license to sin; that he did give them such a license is to my ears an abomination.

Since you, yourself, are going to fail at achieving perfection, you might as well install a system of forgiveness and mercy for yourself, and those who deal with. People will d-i-s-a-p-p-o-i-n-t you, I swear to Wotan. Get ready. — Bitter Crank

No system of forgiveness and mercy can exist without becoming a license to sin. Forgiveness and mercy are practical attitudes that a law-giver and law-enforcer have to adopt in order to avoid unnecessary sacrifices of valuable people. But you cannot put these in the law. This was, in truth, Jesus's point. A wise ruler will forgive, but he will uphold the law as it is: unforgiving - "I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it"

If I sell my sister into slavery, this should not be forgiven. Whether she decides to forgive me later on or not, doesn't change this fact. Depending on the circumstance she may decide to forgive me - but this is grace - not that I deserve to be forgiven, because I don't (and the fact that I don't is really important). People nowadays behave immorally so often because they think they have a license to do so - they expect to be forgiven. This is nonsense. A society simply cannot be structured on no principles like this. So forgiveness must never be introduced into the law. People should never expect forgiveness. Forgiveness should be the result of someone's grace and mercy, not anyone's right.

So no - I shouldn't install a system for forgiveness and mercy for myself. If I fail, I fail, and deserve the punishment that the law demands. In fact, I want to be punished in that case. If I'm not, I'll be exceedingly glad and thankful to the person who has forgiven me. But I won't expect them to. This not expecting to implies admission that I have done wrong, and repentance for my actions, which means that in the future I will change my ways and not do the same wrong again (that is also how I re-interpret the biblical teaching - I should at one point talk about the role I think religion plays and ought to play in society - one forgives because the person in question has internally changed so as not to commit the wrong again - not forgives for forgiveness sake).

And yes - some people will disappoint, others won't. I've met both kinds. Depends among whom you keep company. Typically those who expect to be forgiven are the most likely to do wrong from what I've noticed. Those who never expect to be forgiven, the least likely, and the most likely to change their ways if they do.

Putting the interests of others ahead of one's own is a better way to live. — Landru Guide Us

But you haven't actually provided any evidence which supports that assertion, and I can think of possible counterexamples. I think that that claim is reflective of your own judgement, rather than a state of affairs. We would be closer to reaching an agreement if you would add a few qualifications to these sort of claims, but it seems that you're unwilling to do so, and your claims therefore remain false.

Finally, I am serious about not morally judging those who are put in situations where survival is at stake, no matter how ugly their actions. You seem ambivalent in that regard. — Landru Guide Us

I completely agree, provided the action-in-question directly relates to the agent being in a situation where survival is a stake, like your example, where if one doesn't do such-and-such then their survival is at stake. Given that I can empathise with an egoistic viewpoint, I understand why someone would prioritise their own survival - even to the detriment of others.

The point that I was making with the example of rape was that unrelated acts are a different kettle of fish. Finding oneself in extremis is not sufficient grounds to excuse any act, including unrelated acts. More details are required in order to consider a possible exception. Hence, I'd judge it to be wrong for one of those Jewish inmates to rape another one, unless, for example, the former was coerced into doing so at gunpoint, which would be more excusable.

Is there anything immoral with saying that my happiness is more important than your happiness? — darthbarracuda

The question presupposes objective morality. I see morality as inter-subjective and negotiated. Given that, the answer is that I can't see anything wrong with you feeling that your happiness is more important to you than mine is (and vice versa), so long as we can both agree upon guidelines by which to resolve conflicts that occur when your desires are at odds with mine. You know, things like "do unto others", "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me", or more formally like constitutions and legislation.

But you haven't actually provided any evidence which supports that assertion, and I can think of possible counterexamples — Sapientia

I think I have. Regard narcissists like Trump or Lindsey Lohan. They are childish boring fools, and don't even know it.

The unexamined life is not worth living. Are you actually going to disagree with that?

One is committing immorality by forcing the other one to make a decision, the other one is committing immorality by sacrificing their family/friends for their own survival. Both are immoral, to different degrees, of course. — Agustino

So if a robber holds a gun to your head and you give him the money, you're committing the immoral act of abetting a robbery? Oh the absurdity of imposing morality on people in extremis.

Like Ben Carson you would have rushed the Wehrmach and let them torture you to death before you would do anything immoral in a concentration camp. Right.

My principle: There is no moral way to act when you are beaten, tortured, threatened with death. There are no moral choices in that situation. Just suffering. Now some courageous people act courageously even in extreme situations. We should acknowledge that. But that has nothing to do with morality.

Quite the contrary. — Agustino

Quite. I think we have brought clarity to the fact that we don't think alike about morality. On the other hand, my guess is that we are more or less equally moral, civilized, and decent people. Neither of us are likely to sell our sisters into slavery, and neither of us are likely to hold up the corner convenience store and kill the hapless clerk--even if we were destitute.

It is a bit difficult to determine the relationship between "religion", "formal ethical teaching", and "social pressure".

Religion doesn't have to emphasize morality. If the religion involves animal sacrifices to the gods as a way of appeasing the gods, the morality of the worshippers need not be a major focus. Temple prostitution was part of the fertility cult of the Baal worshippers , so often denounced by the Prophets of Israel. The prostitutes weren't "hookers" -- they were more like priests. (There were male prostitutes as well.) Rites and rituals don't have to model ethical behavior.

I hope people get ethical instruction somewhere along the line--as a sideline of church activity, through reading books about ethics, paying attention to professional standard of conduct, or in Philosophy classes. Not sure what The People are actually getting in the way of ethical instruction.

Our behavior is certainly guided by social (and peer) pressure. There is an unwritten consensus about what flies ethically, and what does not. At a rather low level, we enforce the principle of 'first come first serve' by berating people who break into line or jump ahead several places. "Codes of Silence" contribute significantly to the way police behave. Killing young black men suspected of... something... does not lead to abrupt ostracism, being reported, criticized, or identified as a wrong-doer--most of the time, at least. The police community has established an ethic of mutual protection.

Social and peer pressure can have an odd relationship to the morality and ethics most of the members of a group might have been taught. "Mutual protection" is normally a good thing, but we don't necessarily like it when it is a gang practicing mutual protection, and enforcing a "no-snitching" policy. What the police are doing in some cities isn't much different than following a gang's "no snitch" rule.

When children play games, they tend to enforce some sort of concept of fairness -- one not derived from Biblical stories. Maybe they get the rules from the Cub Scout Handbook.

However we obtain guidance, most of us do seem to behave in a more or less similar and acceptable manner. The demonstrations against police killings in Ferguson, MO and Baltimore, MD, et al, and the various reactions to the demonstrations reveal that there are significant discontinuities in the common morality / ethic / peer group assumptions about proper behavior. The actions of terrorists reveal extreme differences in moral understanding -- greater differences than that revealed by most criminal behavior.

But you haven't actually provided any evidence which supports that assertion, and I can think of possible counterexamples. I think that that claim is reflective of your own judgement, rather than a state of affairs. We would be closer to reaching an agreement if you would add a few qualifications to these sort of claims, but it seems that you're unwilling to do so, and your claims therefore remain fall. — Sapientia

As someone who is rather selfish, who tends to be interested in their own projects rather than the people around me (at least in a practical sense), I mostly agree with Landru in this instance. The thing about helping others is that it means the interests of at least two people (more depending on the number of people who are helped) are fulfilled. It's more productive (in the sense of immediate events and relationships) than people doing their own thing. It forms connections and support which wouldn't be there in a world in which people only cared about themselves.

The important thing though, and this is what Landru hasn't talked about, its actually in the interests of both people involved in these instances.

When helping others becomes a burden, when the individual is losing out on some important project because they are helping others, it's no longer in the helper's (perceived?) interest. That's what so unbearable. The problem is not the loss of a sacred right to have no responsibility, to be able to do anything (as egoism might have us believe), but rather the inability to do what matters a great deal to an individual. Characterising this as a mere "getting to do what you want" is a crass understatement of what's going on. What is actually at stake is the specific action someone feels they are meant to be doing.

I think I have. Regard narcissists like Trump or Lindsey Lohan. They are childish boring fools, and don't even know it. — Landru Guide Us

Even if I accept those examples, a few examples doesn't come anywhere near the amount of evidence that you'd require to support your claim that putting the interests of others ahead of one's own is a better way to live. There are also no doubt people who've been worse off due to selfless acts. If I were to give away all of my possessions, then I wouldn't be better off. If I were to donate one of my organs, then subsequently suffer serious illness as a result, then I wouldn't be better off.

And, again, narcissism is not the subject of this discussion. The myth of Narcissus is actually a good way of emphasising the difference between narcissism and self-interest, because his falling in love with his own image is narcissistic, but not in his self-interest.

The unexamined life is not worth living. Are you actually going to disagree with that? — Landru Guide Us

That's a separate issue from whether or not being selfless is a better way to live, but yes, I do disagree with that, because I recognise that these things are not absolute. Your view is too simplistic. I for one happen to prefer the examined life, but that's just me, and doesn't say much.

That's a separate issue from whether or not being selfless is a better way to live, but yes, I do disagree with that, because I recognise that these things are not absolute. Your view is too simplistic. I for one happen to prefer the examined life, but that's just me, and doesn't say much. — Sapientia

Well, we have found the root of our disagreement. I assert unapologetically that it is part of the human condition that the unexamined life is not worth living.

I don't know how you can really disagree since if one didn't examine their life, how would they know it's worth living. They have condemned themselves to Socrates' judgment by their failure to examine their life.

To me this is the basis of philosophy, and hence every philosophical question, including the morality of selfishness. So we'll have to leave it there.

Someone does not have to know that their life is worth living in comparison to another, to live well. Some people live well without engaging a process of "examination". For them, examining their life is not required to live well, and may only serve as a pointless (or even damaging) distraction.

Examining things is no doubt the basis of philosophy. Philosophy is a critical project. The problem is that ethical action is not. It's it's own state of existence, which may be present without the critical examinations of philosophy. Sometimes people just do good and know what is good.

As someone who is rather selfish, who tends to be interested in their own projects rather than the people around me (at least in a practical sense), I mostly agree with Landru in this instance. The thing about helping others is that it means the interests of at least two people (more, depending on the number of people who are helped) are fulfilled. It's more productive (in the sense of immediate events and relationships) than people doing their own thing. It forms connections and support which wouldn't be there in a world in which people only cared about themselves. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But it isn't difficult to think of counterexamples to the claim that the interests of at least two people are fulfilled by one person helping others. Granted, if both people mutually help each other, then they'll both be better off; but that doesn't support selflessness anymore than self-interest, because one could be motivated by either the former or the latter in that situation and achieve the same result. Whereas if one person is selfless and helps another, and that other person is self-interested enough not to return the favour, then, all things being equal, that person has gained something of benefit and not suffered any loss, whereas the selfless person has arguably suffered a loss, depending on what the help consisted in, and whether it was worth it.

And, again, no one here is arguing in favour of people that only care about themselves. What's with these irrelevant straw men? I know it's easier to attack a more simplistic, extreme characterisation of selfishness, but what's the point in doing so? OK, let's assume that you're right that there wouldn't be connections and support in such a world, and, by implication, such a world is worse off. So what?

When helping others becomes a burden, when the individual is losing out on some important project because they are helping others, it's no longer in the helper's (perceived?) interest. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Agreed. That can be an indication of excessive selflessness, and wouldn't make one better off. Based on the above comment, it seems you agree more with myself than Landru, as Landru hasn't made any such qualifications. I'm arguing in favour of a more balanced, more sophisticated, view.

The problem is not the loss of a sacred right to have no responsibility, to be able to do anything (as egoism might have us believe), but rather the inability to do what matters a great deal to an individual. Characterising this as a mere "getting to do what you want" is a crass understatement of what's going on. What is actually at stake is the specific action someone feels they are meant to be doing. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I'm glad that you acknowledge that such a characterisation is crass. I'm not arguing in favour of this sort of crass egoism-without-restraints.

Well, we have found the root of our disagreement. I assert unapologetically that it is part of the human condition that the unexamined life is not worth living.

I don't know how you can really disagree, since if one didn't examine their life, how would they know it's worth living. They have condemned themselves to Socrates' judgment by their failure to examine their life.

To me this is the basis of philosophy, and hence every philosophical question, including the morality of selfishness. So we'll have to leave it there. — Landru Guide Us

Your argument relies on the mistaken assumption that knowing whether or not one's life is worth living is necessary for a life to be worth living.

I also don't share your mistaken assumption that being self-interested is, in itself, indicative of an unexamined life, so I reject any argument containing such a premise as unsound. I find it obvious, contrary to your prior assertion, that a self-serving life does not entail a life totally unexamined. Can you really not think of a counterexample to that overblown claim of yours? I could level the same charge with regards to being selfless (viz. that it's indicative of an unexamined life), but that wouldn't be productive either. The issue doesn't hinge upon whether or not an unexamined life is worth living. That seems more like a red herring.

Your argument relies on the mistaken assumption that knowing whether or not one's life is worth living is necessary for a life to be worth living. — Sapientia

It is for the person, and that's the sense that counts. A "third party" conclusion that a life is meaningful isn't relevant to whether my life is worth living to me. And for it to be worth living to me, I must examine my life. Thus the unexamined life can never be worth living.

You are making a category error, as if the meaning of one's existence is empirical, when it is existential. Dasein ist je meines - existence is always my existence.