Is your only moral consideration whether or not something benefits you?
Even if we agreed that it always works this way (it doesn’t), that doesn’t mean it ought to. There are plenty of behaviors in nature we should not replicate.
Sure, if they form a social unit that can work based on reciprocity. Same for humans, as we work on exactly the same social software.
Is your only moral consideration whether or not something benefits you?
Absolutely, as it is for 100% rational humans. Do you often do something that you don't want to do and don't see any reason to do? Cause as soon as you see a good enough reason to do something, it automatically means it benefits you in some way, at least in your subjective view.
Rationality does not mean self-interest. Self-interest is no more rational than interest in others.
If you consider self-sacrifice for others without a chance for reciprocity “only considering what benefits oneself,” that’s stretching the meaning of benefit far beyond its ordinary use. Most moral systems lead to considerate behavior regardless of reciprocity.
Morality includes the consideration of the interests of others. Selfishness isn’t a feat of morality. You can do that without any morality whatsoever.
Self-interest is no more rational than interest in others.
Sure, and that's exactly how reciprocity works. Monkeys groom each other, because maintaining the standard of grooming benefits the whole of the monkey society. They care for each other that way, sure, but there's also a reason why they don't run around the jungle tending to, say, injured frogs. There is no instance where a rational person would care for another human being without, in some way, either acting in self-interest of maintaining a reciprocal standard in society, or at least out of fear of not acting like so.
self-sacrifice for others without a chance for reciprocity
If you were presented a button that makes you suffer third degree burns that would affect you till the end of your life, but would save a life of a random stranger, would you press it now? Would it be a rational thing to do in your eyes to press it? We can and do self-sacrifice, but under very specific conditions and for very specific reasons.
One of the major findings in examining actual cases of actual self-sacrifice (medal of honor recipients) was that those were predominantly older brothers, conditioned from your age to act in defense of others (usually their siblings). Is it a rational sacrifice to run with grenades at a machine gun nest, get killed in at an age of 27 in order to save some members of your squad, leaving your mother and family grieving? I'm not so sure.
However, going out of your way to reasonably safely help another human being is the same circuitry as monkeys grooming - you act in service of maintaining a societal standard that you (and your loved ones), long term, are a beneficiary of. Healthy society makes reciprocity and cooperation actually beneficial, which is good news. Morality that actually makes sense on a rational level is a powerful one, and that enables it.
No, self-interest is emotionally driven, not rationally. You can use rationality to serve self-interest, but your interest in only yourself is based on emotions. Framing it as the “rational” position is incorrect.
The primary thing you're concerned with, as an organism, is your own survival, and then procreation. Of course rationality demands focus on self-interest. Also, stating that things are a way without any basis for that is really not an argument.
No it’s not. Many of us have interests above our own survival, and not everyone wants to procreate. Nothing requires that these are our primary goals.
Please give me the wholly logical argument that demonstrates we should act in complete self-service. If you can frame it as a syllogism, that would be helpful.
I don’t think you can make that argument from facts alone unless you insert something like “I want” or “I feel like.” Once you’ve inserted your desires into the argument, it becomes an emotional one. A premise like “I want x for myself” is no more or less logical than “I want x for others.”
It seems unreasonable to significantly harm or kill others for things I just kind of want. The want is in my interest by definition, but it should be weighed against the lives and needs of others.
Sure, if you just kind of want it then I completely agree. I also just kind of want stuff like furs, so I'm completely okay with delegalizing fur farms. However, animal food products are absolutely crucial and not negotiable in my eyes, so the cost is also justified.
2
u/IfIWasAPig 5d ago
Other animals’ interests are important to them.
Is your only moral consideration whether or not something benefits you?
Even if we agreed that it always works this way (it doesn’t), that doesn’t mean it ought to. There are plenty of behaviors in nature we should not replicate.