What Is The Purpose Of Helping Others?

When people are sometimes good and sometimes bad, it makes them very obnoxious, hard to predict, and downright hypocritical if they profess to be good, God fearing people.

Racism is caused by the government. Big business fights racism. Apartheid: government. Jim Crow: government. Slavery: government, believe it or not. Most whites hated slavery because they had to pay taxes to uphold it and they were forced by the government to be conscripted as slave catchers. Poor whites hated it because free labor undermined their ability to market themselves as cheap labor. (Slavery isn't necessarily racist, but that's an example). Big business isn't about black and white, but green. The government is about good and bad feelings and behavior. And you know what they say about the road to hell. Business is about pure self interest.

Why do you think there are so many blacks on TV in positive roles out of their proportion with the population? Because people like blacks now? Don't people like Asians?? It's because blacks are consumers! Asian culture tends to delay gratification and be thrifty.

Why would someone be a bully if they're minding their own business? Why would there be terrorists offended by bikinis if they worried about themselves only?

People might still interact, but for selfish reasons. That's what friends are for.

 

Like I said you are talking about an unrealistic and hypothetical only form of self centeredness. It sounds good in theory (well, not to me because I see it doesn't work as you portray it) but is bogus when trying to apply in the real world.

Racism is not primarily caused by the government. Maybe in your country it is for a large part kept in check and encouraged by certain media and maybe even a part of the government/politicians but that is not the same thing.

 

Newborns that are not held and loved tend to die from what it is euphemistically called a "Failure to Thrive", while the destitute poor and elderly among us tend to die when they have nothing to give others. We are literally made for love and reflect both the original creative impetus of the Big Bang and relentless efficiency of a Big Crunch. Everything in existence is both creative and destructive with the more social and creative something is the longer it tends to last. The self-evident truth only asserts itself within the silent void that for anything to be considered true it must first be graciously shared.

 

Of course. I thought it was understood that we were neither talking about this world nor a perfect one, but one better than this one in theory.

 

Oh sure!

Native Americans tie their children to papooses and leave them to cry. They cry and cry and no one retrieves them. That makes them stronger.

There are some African tribes where mothers frown at their babies to teach them to be warriors.

There are elderly people who LOVE being all alone, for the first time in their lives. I know I do.

 

No, we were talking about what's the use of helping others and if the purpose is improving eachothers conditions (seems the conclusion) how humans could actually improve living in this world (for eveyone). But your theory is still flawed even when talking about a hypothetical world (which so far seems still based on this reality, right?)

 

I wonder - would the self-absorbed people in this hypothetical world still help their children?

What if they get ill and need medical attention? No doctors I assume would exist because the people who might be doctors are too self absorbed to even consider such a career. It would be like the entire human race on ketamine.

This whole line of thought seems nonsensical. Humans can only exist as a collective, and that will always mean being ready to help others.

 

It is nonsensical when arguing it is the best thing for us all. But it could work for certain individuals of course. Our society caters to such individuals as well. And having a few a-social hermits should be no problemo. If it is the majority of course then society and the world as it is these days are evidently fucked. Malicious corporations could do what they want, people would not watch out for indirect consequences on others, etc.


Self centeredness/absorption also doesn't mean no affiliation or joining of organisations I mean this is often done also merely for self preservation/to maintain a strong position, to gain or keep an advantage in society.

A thought about what OP said about terorrism: it seems that certain suicide bombers did what they did because they had no affiliation with the society they grew up in. They were rejected socially and their lack of belonging was ignored and/or trivialized. They felt they had no real reason to live for. This is one of the main reasons they were subjectible to extremists and their dubious teachings.

 

There will always be individuals who are self-absorbed, but unless they're actually catatonic, they are rarely totally in that state. Some people might even look at my life and conclude that I'm a little bit that way myself. But I'm getting older and I've had phases of being very involved in things previously, and I do what I can to help others when I see the need and have the capacity.
I also see clearly that I'd be happier if society was happier. It's probably true to some extent that no-body can be entirely happy whilst we have all the negative things going on in the world. Unless they have in some way shut themselves off, and even then I have doubts.

I agree about the suicide bombers, or at least the ones raised in western societies like the London tube bombers. For some in the middle east maybe there are different reasons such as a desire for revenge against those perceived as the enemy. Thinking of a kid from Gaza who has seen his family killed for example. In that context perhaps the suicide bomber thinks they're actually helping the cause of their culture or society by their actions.

 

Doctors would exist because they enjoy science/medicine and because they want to make a lot of money.

I completely disagree that humans can only exist as a collective. Look how atomized society is already and we're doing just fine.

What about the children? It's always about the children. People have kids for selfish reasons. Raising quality kids is ego extension.

 

There's a difference between self-contained and selfish. Selfish is doing things at other people's expense, i.e. corporations. Self-contained is worrying solely about your own well-being. No more fat shaming, slut shaming, or racial slurs btw.

If it's in everyone personal interest to join an organization, they will do so.

If these homegrown terrorists are that weak that they decide to kill people because they don't "fit in," then that says more about them than the society they live in.

 

Hitler. Mao. Stalin. All altruists.

 

Not every parent is a parent for selfish reasons. Plenty of people don't want kids exactly for selfish reasons as well.

Saying raising quality kids is only done for ego extension is simply preposterous.

Are we doing just fine as a whole? I would say average at best, and if we look at how it is doing ok/average it is because of the efforts of less self centered people and organisations. Our society is great because the collective makes it possible for the individual to be an asocial hermit, not the other way around.

You are so far still ignoring the influence of corporations and businesses. You don't see how they would ruin everything if everyone would be self centered?

 

Calling them weak doesn't change anything about terrorism supposedly disappearing when everyone would be self centered though. It could just as easily massively increase because of it.

Ok. Have fun playing the devils advocate

 

Ever tried producing all the food and commodities you need all by yourself? How would that work for 7 billion and counting?

I would very much dispute that 'we're doing fine'. Both your own country and mine and deeply divided for one small example. There's also environmental damage, global terrorism, wealth differential between the 1st and 3rd world etc etc, I'm sure I don't need to spell out a long list of reason we're very far from fine.

Only in a place like America would you imagine that doctors become doctors just to make money.

 

Most people becoming a doctor are in serious debt for years.

 

Do people make money selling food?

Doctors also like science.

When has there not been terrorism or a wealth disparity? Poverty has lifted due to globalization despite the widening gap between rich and poor. The floor is lifting.

 

the profiteering gluttons in this world are literally killing people, i hope they are proud of that (i doubt they give a damn)

 

They had big plans for their societies, but lacked empathy for the individuals in it to an almost psychotic level. The means were always justified to reach the end goal, this is a rather dangerous and unwanted kind of altruism, there's probably a more fitting term for people like them then altruists.
We could tear your argument apart further by determining if you would like to live in one of their societies And if not, why not.

 

To me you seem to be confused. No food would be produced without a collective effort. Hence it wouldn't be possible to sell food. As an individual it would be virtually impossible to produce enough to feed yourself. Even hunter gatherers rely on being part of a larger collective.

So like it or lump it, you're stuck with massive collectives of many kinds just to live. If you say that only activities that produce money are valid or worthwhile, still, to even have money you need the collective of the state to issue the money.