If a individual knew that all his or her acts of kindness and empathy would get them nowhere in the world, would they still be obliged by responsibility of being good knowing that such a existance would decay their chances of reasonable survival?
Should they just keep at this conception of being good for nothing but the sheer nobility or martyrdom of it all?
Kindness, generosity, goodness, are attributes of a merciful nature, which is a result of abundant power. A weak nature can never be generous or kind.
Kindness as a means to get ahead is a scheme of a weak nature; it is false, and is experienced by the receiver as unpleasant - there are always strings attached and this shows in the manner the act is performed. Such hypocricy will never help anyone ahead in the world. It is better to be openly selfish if one needs to get ahead from a weak position.
One could start out being kind as a act of selflessness without motivation or trying to aspire to a existance without motivation no matter how hard it is but as they get older around them they could find that their acts of kindness do nothing to improve their own survival as well.
In this instance does the individual still have the responsibility of being good or would it be logical for them to turn their prospects to amoral sentiments where they throw out all conventions in the instance of their own self preservation at all costs?
The thread is essentially asking that if a person acts good their entire lives with no benefits are they essentially obliged or responsible to continue being good regardless if it is detrimental to their own survival?
If they are obliged and responsible to continue this form of goodness regardless on the fact that it is detrimental to their living, what exactly is the basis of that conclusion?
Essentially society says that a poor man is obliged and responsible in paying his taxes or conforming to the basic tenets of civilization even if such powers forced on him are detrimental to his own surival/health.
Keep in mind I don’t believe in your willy nilly conceptions of good or wrong but I ask this question in trying to understand moralist propositions.
Nothing is without motivation. Real kindness, generosity, is motivated by the will to see the receiver of your kindness blossom.
Kindness could be seen as a means to happiness in that sense - but does not function as a means to survive. A (hypothetical) person who’se only virtue is kindess will be used and stepped on until he becomes bitter and learns some of the harsher mechanisms of life.
You forget that all human actions however are a extension of selfishness by the sheer fact that survival depends on the self inclinations of an organism.
That is a fantasm. Survival of an organism depends on the coordinated cooperation of cells, not on the rogue behaviour of self isolating cells, or cancers. Society, likewise depends on the coordinated cooperation of individuals, not on the behaviour of a criminal who wants everything for himself.
What I meant was; how do you think an individual reproduces? By itself?
I think I can see your facination with rape connecting to this subject. But I predict that if you continue along this path your genotype will not be very succesful. Most rape victims get abortions nowadays.
Good people don’t do good things for the sake of gaining anything worldly from it or for increasing their chances of survival. People who do good things and expect to gain something other than just the good feeling of having done something good are selfish crooks.