WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEST FOR SOCIETY?
(VERSUS WHAT IS MADE UP TO BE THOUGHT OF AS BEST)
Mankind evolved to survive. He has evolved to have his number one priority to be self-interest.
However, people seem to protest that and to put a moral right wrong on self interest, rather than considering the broader view of what is actually best for society, not what would be perfect (but is not rationally attainable, and therefore not real).
Having "mirror neurons" we can project how another person feels - and we get a sickening personal sense of danger (lack of safety) if another person is suffering, because that person could be us - at least in our fantasy in our mind (it exists only as a mental construct, not a reality).
What else could explain our anger and/or moral outrage at having someone not agree with us that they must be altruistic and self-sacrificing in order to be "good"?
But, a person protests, I just don't like that person, as a justification for that emotion as if there is no (necessary) thought behind the emotion of "not liking" (disgust, revulsion, and other emotions in that category).
The moral "should" is not a reality-based concept.
What we want is to have an interaction in total with other human beings in a society that will assure or promote our own self-interest (survival, being well off, being safe).
Interestingly the societies that have allowed the freedom for people to operate in their own self interest (while being protected from individual harm), when using proper economic freedom and principles, have prospered. Societies that have insisted that people sacrifice their own self interest for the good of society (or "the state", which is meant to mean for the good of "the people" of that nation) have all either failed and/or have produced much harm.
The irony here is that "self-interest" has produced the best benefits for society while the idea of acting to one's own detriment or loss for the good of others has failed to do so.
Perhaps there is some lack of logic and/or facts here... D'ya think!
The people being better off overall does seem like a reasonable moral goal. So the morality of something is then based on "does it promote having the people being better off?"
Self-sacrifice, while made up to be "moral", is not in fact moral in actually producing the "good" end product. It "seems" good, but it is not completely well-thought out, still being stuck in some caveman idea of what is threatening and what is safe. If we think things through, we always end up with finding that which works and promoting more of that, though never to an extreme since an extreme would be outside the bounds of "what works for the overall good".
Peace works.
Freedom to pursue one's own self-interest works.
Economic freedom and free trade works.
Protecting people from harm so that can go about their lives in safety and freedom works.
Making laws that protect the person and their property against harm by others works. (The problem is not in "the reality system" but always in the nature of mankind, where individuals can go "outside of bounds" of workability, due to their ignorance - where they are greedy, taking from others, or using tactics that take away from others. Reasonably limiting the "harm" that can be done by others, including their organizations, is in our best self-interests.)
A perfect world does not happen. People do suffer, some dislocations do occur as a natural part of movement in the world - yes, we may wish there was some great controller who would have it be otherwise, but that is not realistic. Yes, we may wish to impose controls and force everyone to be perfect in an attempt to have no natural consequences that we do not want.
Nazi Germany and Russia have tried that, where the "moral" code was to sacrifice for the good of the people (the state). How well did that work?
If that didn't work, why do we still have people insisting that it or a microcosm of it could work. It is simply because they have not thought it out clearly and realistically.
And you can always spot the idealism by its "shoulds", enforced by social and moral pressure or suppression on another to get them to conform to the "should".
On the other side, you can spot the people who have thought it out by their adherence to the standard of "what works".
PEOPLE MUST LEARN A SOUND BASIS
People tend not to think these things out, understandably so, since they are just trying to survive well in this world and have limited time. But the problem is that they assume that their conclusions are "the truth", when there is in fact no realistic basis for their conclusions. They operate in the natural primitive, error-prone Believing Brain mode and can often create harm instead of progress even though they may "mean well". Their assumption that if someone accepts reality they are "heartless" is not a valid belief.
Reality is simply reality. What works is simply what works. What we make up about it, and the morality we conjure up, is just what we make up, not reality.
There is only self-interest and survival in reality. All the rest is made up - all the shoulds and moral codes to force people to comply are just that and no more...
THE REAL QUESTION
What is actually best for society in realistic terms, in reality?
"What actually works the best?" is the real question we should answer - and then do more of that.
