Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


EGOISM AND THE PRINCIPLE HOW NOBODY ELSE CAN HURT ME UNLESS I LET THEM


Egoism is considered to be a harmless form of selfishness. It is doing good for others while being motivated to do this simply because you enjoy it. It is the enjoyment you want. The good results are really a side-effect. This is harmful in the sense that it puts enjoyment above people's happiness.

Ethical egoism says that all you do should be for yourself and that it is good for others to have you like this for it means you make them happy because you are happy and it makes you feel better. Egotism is the term for an exaggeration of it which demands that you trample over others to get what you want. Altruism opposes both saying that we should be other-centred. But even the altruist does good to satisfy some desire he or she because he or she has it and not because of the other person so altruism is just a con.

Psychological egoism claims that no matter how unselfish we seem to be, we are in fact selfish and can't help it. All it is saying is that the altruist is right to help other people but wrong to pretend that she is not doing this because she wants to, that is, gets pleasure from simply doing it. This is simply what the saying “virtue is its own reward”, is trying to tell us. What happens then is you help others even if you hate doing it for you still want to do it under the circumstances and you are doing it for yourself and not them. You never help others to make them feel better but to make you feel better because you know you have no control or say over how others feel. Others have to respond by letting themselves feel better in order to feel better. They make themselves feel better because of you. You didn't really do anything.

Wanting to bandage John’s wounds means you want to fulfil the desire to help John so it is the desire that is important to you not John or his wounds. Egoism is a major pillar of informed atheist thought. I cannot say humanist for humanist tends to think we can be selfless and should be and should serve everybody.

We are assuming human nature cannot do any good for another unless it thinks of something in it for itself. If you cannot save a drowning baby unless you want even the reward of thinking you did the right thing that actually shows you are all for yourself. You would trade the baby's life if you saw no benefit for yourself.

So far we have learned that if we can avoid being hurt by the fact that others help us for there is something in it for themselves then we have the power to stop what another does to us from attacking what we are inside.

Even without that we know it is possible to be violated by somebody and yet give them no power to hurt you or make you feel degraded.

What relationship would egostic human nature and this have? Are there risks?

BUT WHAT IF THE PERSON YOU HELP FEELS USED?

Is there more selfishness in a person who knows he will get a lot out of helping A than a person who knows they will get a little? Does it matter? No. Selfishness is about what you are not what you do. A 100% selfish person will take a sweet as well as take a pallet of sweets.

It has to be expected that some people will feel hurt upon realising that any given person is using them to to feel good.

To avoid this keep it human. I mean that you should not help another person for God or mainly God.

Egoism is godless for it implies each person can and/or should only serve himself or herself and not God or others. This service of self manifests through helping others. People benefit far more from the assistance of people who have great self-esteem than they do others. The more you love yourself properly the more you benefit others.

Egoism is about indulging desires. If we are naturally egoists, then the notion of God doing miracles as signs is ridiculous. Why? Because all he needs to do is tweak our emotional responses. We have no control over our feelings. We think we do. When I feel miserable and go for a walk to cheer myself up it seems I am controlling the feeling. But I did not make the good feeling. It happened just because I went for a walk. It might not have happened. So I never control my feelings.

If I am an egoist, then my god is me. I can't have another god. God setting up a religion with miracles and a theology to win me would only show God's own ignorance.

To do things for others God is egotism despite the outward appearances of holiness. Your self-centred nature should be used to help people not beings that may not exist.

Keep it human and the person will see, "But I am like that too. It did me no harm to be helping others for some reward even if it was just a internal reward."

ONE REASON FOR THE HURT IS THE INFLUENCE OF ALTRUISM

Take an example of egoism. It could be charity work or it could be playing football or anything. We are going to choose the example of charity work.

To enjoy charity work is to take pleasure in the charity work. Some say that it is not about getting experiences of pleasure through doing the work. And others say it is not JUST about attaining such experiences.

This states that doing the work is the attraction. Its a pleasure to do the work. This pleasure is distinct from the pleasurable experiences on the job.

Altruists say that if you do the job for these experiences you are mercenary and selfish. If that is true, why don't they consider it selfish just because its pleasure to do the work?

You may never feel more free and more happy than when you indulge your desire to help others and when you do it to indulge. You are doing it for you and not them. It follows that even if we might be wrong, we should assume that others help us for themselves and not for our sake. We should want them to.

Egoism is doing good for others while being motivated to do this simply because you enjoy it. It is the enjoyment you want. The good results for others are really a side-effect. This is harmful in the sense that it puts enjoyment above people's happiness. Its a form of selfishness. But it means that practically speaking you can be one amazing person. In a brutal corrupt world, is it really a big deal if people help one another for selfish reasons as long as those selfish reasons do not have them working to dominate or destroy those they help?

I HURT ME, YOU CAN'T HURT ME


People worry about altruism, egoism and egotism for they want to condemn condemn selfish behaviour as harmful.

You slap me and I am traumatised. I have caused this trauma not you. I am tormenting myself over you and blaming you. So the question of whether malicious behaviour is selfish or not selfish is irrelevant.

But this leads to an accusation that you are the selfish one hurting yourself and letting the other hurt you. You are to blame but you will blame them.

You end up saying, "The only selfish act is one where the victim chooses to be a victim."

As hateful as that is, altruism is top of the list in the hate. It boosts it.

What effect has altruism on the idea that if anybody insults me it is not them that hurts me but my letting my feelings be hurt?


It suggests that it is our duty not to be offended and the more we are reviled the better to get us used to that treatment. It suggests that you are making the person hurting you feel they are doing it successfully which is hardly altruistic but cruel so you are hurting them and not them you. You are encouraging them. If anybody is depressed or sad it is their own fault and so they should get no sympathy. Even enemies will be put before them and will be admitted into the hospitals if they need it and they will be further down the list.


Egoism is better than that for it upholds the individual's right to come first so the individual can be the cause of their own degraded response to what somebody has done and be supported in that.

THE JUDGEMENT PROBLEM

Suppose human nature can be selfless. A man can rob a bank out of purely selfless motives. Yet this action is usually condemned as selfish. I can kill for altruistic reasons. I can give up my health to benefit others and do this for egoistic reasons. It is outward action that matters not altruism or egoism. Being altruist or egoist matters only to the person who knows what they are. Those who try to control you by saying that such and such behaviour is selfish are bullies. Being malicious, for example, hurts the malicious person - so it can hardly be described as selfish!

Altruism definitely demands that your actions be assessed by others and defined as selfless. We would not even have the theory or have religions to promote it if people were not doing that. Altruism is just virtue signalling egoism that pretends to be not egoism. Egotism would be more accurate.

NO POINT IN GETTING UPSET ABOUT EGOISTS


Though we claim to be concerned about the biggest happiness of the biggest number we in fact in general are not. The empirical evidence shows that we are more about ourselves than we want anybody to realise. We are like that as a society not just as a person. Collective egoism is a real thing. We cannot blame egoism. Egoism as in us being programmed to seek something for ourselves in others cannot be blamed for it is what we are. And if it is a choice we all end up making then reality makes us make it so that is as strong as it being inherent. Condemning egoism and blaming it is going to make no positive difference. It will make a negative difference!

SO?

Egoism has risks and can upset but we have no choice. It is evil to condemn it for that. Accepting it as what we have got works wonders.