Selfish-less-ness

The most selfless act you can make is to die so that someone else can live by consuming your resources, living in your house, driving your car etc. Christianity (which is packed with altruism) even admits this -- Jesus died so you can live.

My question with respect to the above is: Why would anyone choose to follow a moral code where the highest virtue is death / self destruction? In my mind that alone is the criteria for pure evil (in a moral tautological sense and in a premoral utility / pragmatic sense). Indeed, we see countries where altruism is put into practice via political force, and millions die. Surprising? not really.

The debate is over an 'ought' rather than an 'is', but is inconsequential. We suspect, from recent research into mammal intelligence, that all animals have what is essentially a utility function; that is, a relatively simple function by which they set short and long term goals which they then fulfill through their actions -- and this is manifest by a set of 'urges' / commands handed down to the brain for implementation.

A utility function for a robot driving a taxi might be: "Maximize profit whilst staying in the bounds of the law"

Humans appear to be no different to animals in this respect. Each of us has a slightly unique utility function based on some homospaien baseline. And, based on the goals people set, we can infer some semblance of what this utility function is / might be...

This is an inconclusive list: Self interest, survival, collecting resources, and reproducing seem to be included. Also: inhibitions such as an aversion to violence, and an aversion to social outcastedness.

Given the above, no amount of arguing about what 'ought' to be is going to change anything, and indeed the waters become entirely muddied, because if you feel the urge to argue in favour of selflessness as the highest virtue then your utility function would still be prompting that very act of argumentation; If you were right then everyone would be dead because a selfless utility function would lead to instant suicide of everyone, and if you are wrong then you are either ignorant or lying, because a selfish utility function is in conflict with what you are saying.

Of course utility functions are just a theory, but the supporting evidence is pretty good.

 

Isn't this just evidence of empathy? It doesn't really have anything to do with virtues or morality. Like if you see someone who's just broken a leg and is writhing on the ground in absolute agony, you're going to call an ambulance / doctor, right? You're not going to stand there and say "Hrmm, let me think about this... let me just consult my moral code for the correct action to suit this situation."

Morality (virtue/vice) is high level rational judgment about the quality and integrity and intention of action. It is possible to have a selfless moral code, albeit an inconsistently and unhappily applied code, in the same way it is possible to cut your own hand off if you are absolutely convinced it's going to murder you in your sleep.

 

Well no, and it would also be considered weird and subservient.

 

In technical terms that would potentially be considered a moral act of selflessness. But what is your point exactly? As I already stated:

 

Are you suggesting that a mother taking care of her child is selfless?

Well would you consider procreation to be selfless then?

 

Well my point was that if procreation is not selfless then neither is feeding your own children, since they are both undertaken to the same end: raising offspring.

 

Sure, I'm not saying it isn't. Where self-interest overlaps then you have win-win selfishness. That's how the world gets along so well. That's why when you go out to buy dinner the shop doesn't grumble about charity and neither do you. You both fulfill your own self interest and you both win from the exchange.