Altruism is for the greater good, in other words, kill everybody because of global warming. That's bullshit too

@FocusOn1

Or join the army to fight the Nazis. In other words sacrifice yourself for others. It has little meaning however out of context. For example you may jump in a river to save a child but if you don't know how to swim it is foolishness not altruism. A lot of what is sold to people as noble sacrifice such as many things related to environmentalism fall into the foolishness category for a variety of reasons.

The thing to keep in mind is that neither morality nor reciprocal altruism are natural. Morality is a social construct that evolved cultural over time and reciprocal altruism doesn't exist because nature is amoral.

@wolfhnd communists use for the greater good as an excuse to violate individual rights . As in the above example, kill everyone because of global warming

It feels like the quality of the citizens is what matters most.

@jaymaron

The relationship between morality and the success of a civilization is highly underrated by the most intelligent of people.

@wolfhnd

Yes. They corrupt the foundations of morality.

@jaymaron

I think that has to do with the relationship between openness and intelligence. I know in my own life I have not questioned many things as much as I should have. More exactly it's not that I don't question things it's that I can always think of opposing rationales. I think morality is one of those things that you cannot rationalize because it doesn't originate rationally.

If you religious you are going claim it is received wisdom. That kind of works for me more than most people I know. Most of the serious conversations over morality I have had has been with science oriented people that may or may not be atheists. I never ask. I operate under the assumption that one initial cause from a source outside the universe is as good as another. What I see is how morality evolved over time in response to the nature of civilization. For example the bible starts out with a pretty tribal morality that evolves into Christianity, a more universal religion. I have always had that belief and it is not unlike Jordan Peterson's take on the topic.

The point is that the more intelligent you are the more likely you are to see the cause and effect relationships in the world from a top down perspective. You put yourself in the position of being the designer of your own destiny. That "feeling" is reinforced by success and the respect your intelligence attracts. You start to think you are "god" and less intelligent people just superstitious or ignorant because they have less control over what happens to them. That the morality of the masses is quaint, pedestrian, unsophisticated, habitual, and little more than a way to deal with existential angst. You see them as closed minded and without freewill. The problem is that complex chaotic systems such as societies do not work the way the intelligent see the world. Complex chaotic systems are irreducible and unpredictable. They can't be approached with a methodology that uses abstract reductionism or technically from the position of the ego. (for more on that topic see Stephen Wolfram's "New Kind of science" ). For complex chaotic systems solutions have to be evolved not designed. Or if you prefer a mater of "received wisdom". It still requires a lot of intelligence to sort out that "wisdom". We call the people that can do that "prophets" or geniuses depending on your orientation.

Does any of this make any sense to you? I'm not trying to sell anyone my philosophy or point of view it is just useful to me so I share it.

@jaymaron

I like to share a little story that I'm not even sure how true it is but it makes a point.

According to rumor Einsteins motivation for doing the work necessary to win the Noble Prize was by standards of the time immoral. The rumor was that he wanted to get rid of his wife and marry his cousin. To do that without a lot of bother he needed the prize money.

Considering his propensity to seek the company of the opposite sex I find it very easy to believe. It pretty much fits the profile of other highly intelligent people I have known that were promiscuous. For the most part what separates the average Cad from someone of intelligence is that they control the scandal very well. They seldom end up paying any price for their behavior. And yes women are attracted to intelligent men and when they get dumped they usually don't complain that much. It is a lot like the rock star nonsense.