THERE IS NO ARGUMENT THAT VALIDATES THE CLAIM THAT I TRULY ACT FOR THE OTHER
If I act for the other we call that altruism.
If I act to help the other to get some benefit for me that is egoism.
Jesus did not command that we love ourselves. He only said we already do that and we must love the neighbour. That is commanding what we now know as altruism.
Altruism says it is good if you are starving to give your chips to the other starving person and do without.
Egoism says it is good to keep the chips and eat them.
If altruism is so good for the soul it follows the altruist is harming the other person by asking them to accept the chips. It is robbing the other soul of altruism.
Altruism then is definitely not good. Is it neutral?
Neutral is not another kind of good. Neutral means that if you don’t agree with nude beaches but want people to choose you have to allow half a nude beach. See the point?
Is altruism both good and bad to equal measure? Is it evil? I suppose that depends on the situation and the person.
Why are there so many liars such as Jesus Christ who overrate and praise altruism?
Altruism is put out there by the likes of him as a moral concern. Is it? It could be a psychological concern. It might be no more a moral matter than having eyes is. Altruism is not real if it is made about morality when it is not. Then it turns into a halo-shining job for the altruist and also for those who say they recognise it. You cannot see good unless you are good yourself in some way.
Altruism is only defended by extreme examples such as the soldier casting himself on a grenade to save his comrades. Now unusual circumstances tell us nothing about if it happens much in day-to-day life. If it is too rare then why is religion or society so interested in it as if it is relevant to our daily experience? Virtue-signalling maybe?
Why are we not saying that what the soldier did is in fact outside of morality? If you think life has no meaning or that morality is just imaginary you could do what the soldier did.
People say that if you cannot manage to be about others when they need it instead of yourself then morality is nonsense. So you don't like the implications if morality is nonsense. You hate the consequences. But the implications and consequences have nothing to do with showing morality is right. You don't want rain tomorrow but that has nothing at all to do with whether there will be rain or not. Altruism can only be declared real and sacred and achievable by people who violate it with lies! Something is amiss.
Altruism is supposedly a call for us to rise above our animal selfish nature. Ironic. Evolution and progress are not the same thing. Progress can lead to destruction in the end. We generally have not been good other species and the planet. No wonder when altruism comes up with a speciest argument like that!
Altruism wants women to be incubators. A woman whose memory lasts only 30 seconds gets pregnant. She consented to her pregnancy. That consent is now invalid and overall we see she would need an abortion. The baby should not be there by any standard for she is not consenting. Yet in the guise of the sacredness of unborn life, she will not be allowed an abortion.
A woman loses her memory permanently when she has her baby and her baby needs to be attached to her by a machine to stay alive for a week. What if she disconnects the baby for it is her body? Altruism says she is wrong. She is killing it. She is torturing the baby if it dies horribly. Altruism will still say that if it transpires that she does not remember that she got pregnant as the result of rape.
It is not just religious people who argue that altruism is true.
The argument that just because an act is mine it is not necessarily about me is very rife.
Counter it with, "Just because I gave half my liver to save John so I could inherit his money does not mean I am self-centred."
Or, "I wish to be extremely fair to John even at my own personal loss. But it is not for John but for the principle. I value fairness and John just happens to benefit".
The argument ignores that we need to be part of something with similar ego traits and inclinations for it is impossible to be all for yourself on your own. You relate to the others not as others but as extensions of you and your needs.
And if an act being mine does not make it about me, it does not make it about another either. So we are back to where we started. The argument is irrelevant. It is a lie which shows that subconsciously it is about me. Altruism operates by such lies so it is not real.
Religion listens as somebody says, "Everything I do for another is not really about the other. I do it for I want to, I fulfil my need to act. If I hate doing it I still in fact want to do it under the circumstances. I want the dentist to do my filling as much as I hate it for I hate the alternative more." It will answer, "An act being mine or wanted under the circumstances does not mean it is about me. I am not always just about me."
So it ignores the fact that we always do what we feel like doing under the circumstances. So we do get something back. We scratch an itch.
It then comes up with a parallel argument that is supposed to help.
It says that just because I find something logical does not mean it is merely about me and not the truth. But we know the truth will bite back if ignored so it being about me and still being true are compatible.
It tells us to love the sinner and hate the sin we see in them but what if you are the sinner? Do you love yourself as a sinner and hate your sins? In fact it is because you love yourself that you hate yourself for the sins. The person who is ruined by guilt and shame knows that experience too well. The command to love the sinful and hate what they do poses as profound and helpful. It is a cynical deceit.
I read somewhere that, "My desire for football does not prove I am psychologically about myself alone ultimately for I don’t need to play for my welfare." This is so stupid. Doing things you don't "need" to do is paradoxically your most common need. They are part of your wellbeing.
That is our discussion then on the subject of whether we are psychologically made to be egoists or altruists or can swing either way or whatever. Each person is for themselves.
What about the view that I should be ultimately all for me?
Individual ethical egoism and universal ethical egoism are both egoism. They are indeed. But here is the difference.
The first is saying that if you are happy to be on your own and do nothing for anybody that is fine.
The second is saying the same thing but this time is it is you and the group you are part of, it is about you and the group. Both are selfish except one is you as an island and the other is you as part of the group that benefits and includes you. To serve yourself you serve the group for it is of you and you of it.
Like universal ethical egoism, you and the God you think you are in a personal relationship with, makes your service not service but self-serving. There is more self-serving in thinking you are one half with a God who gives you all you have and sustains every breath you take than supporting your group that is about you and every other member equally.
We conclude that nothing refutes the view that I am really ultimately all about me. That does not in itself make it true. But the lies told in favour of altruism show it has to be true. Egoism is simply true.
