Morality is a guilt trip

[Anon136]

imagine that you are part of an army tasked with defending your society from invaders. you know with relative certainty that these invaders will kill every man woman and child in your society if you should fail to defeat them in battle. if you go to battle than there is a 50% chance that you will die in battle. Your presence in the battle will increase your societies chance of winning from 50% to 51%. if you abandon the battle and hide in the woods than your chance of dieing in battle is reduced to 0% and the chance that your society will win the battle is only decreased from 51% to 50%. So it is rational for you as the individual to abandon the battle BUT if everyone else makes the same rational calculation as you than there is a 100% chance that everyone in your entire society will die.

economists call this problem "market failure" which is specifically a situation where individual rationality does not translate to group rationality. just like how thumbs are an evolutionary adaptation aimed at addressing the problem of being unable to grasp things, morality too is an evolutionary adaptation just like thumbs, only it is aimed at addressing the problem of market failure.

[1715188049]

1715188049

[1715188049]

1715188049

[1715188049]

1715188049

[1715188049]

1715188049

[1715188049]

1715188049

[Mike Christ]

I'm not sure.  I believe morality is masked self-interest.  If all of us are better off, I'll be way better off.  If there is ever a situation in which either you or I must die to continue living, I will die, because I'd rather take the very slim chance of there being an afterlife than deal with a real living Hell.

[Anon136]

I'm not sure.  I believe morality is masked self-interest.  If all of us are better off, I'll be way better off.  If there is ever a situation in which either you or I must die to continue living, I will die, because I'd rather take the very slim chance of there being an afterlife than deal with a real living Hell.

It is axiomatically the case that all action is self interested. The idea of a non self interested action is a paradox. the fact that you have taken an action is its self proof that you believed the action was in your interest.

[crumbs]

...
It is axiomatically the case that all action is self interested. The idea of a non self interested action is a paradox. the fact that you have taken an action is its self proof that you believed the action was in your interest.

Consider the following (Let's call "good stuff" hedons, even though it's imprecise):

1. Perceived self-interest --
   An act which the actor believes will maximise hedonic value, but in reality does not. (investing in a stock that tanks)
2. Short-term self-interest --
   An act which offers immediate gratification, but is known by the actor to reduce overall hedonic value. (shooting dope, smoking crack, being lazy etc., etc.)
3.  Irrationality --
   "My liver is bad, but i won't see a doctor.  Because fuq, that's why!" (Dostoevsky posts on 4chan)

And, of course, there's your definition of self-interest.  If self-interest is axiomatic, then it's axiomatic.  When you start with a given that all actions are motivated by self-interest, there's nothing left to prove.