Are personalities a bad thing to have?

Originally Posted by Soluzar

My question for you is this: Does it make any difference if my acts are selfless or not, considering that the end result is the same?

Assuming that means complete moral subjectivity, it also means that effectiveness can be measured quantifiably. If something cannot be objectively or absolutely "good," then productivity, quality of life must be the means with which we measure "good."

Let's say you have a group of people that are complete egoists. They do pretty well for themselves, and most likely don't make very many friends. Contrast against a group of tightly-knit, but moreover, open-minded individuals, who are willing to compromise in terms of personal reservations, for a more common good. Your basic hunter-gatherer troupe, if you will. They encounter another group of hunter-gatherers, and become fast friends, recognizing the need for strength of numbers in an unforgiving wilderness.

There will always be those who refuse to take part in these social niceties, or perhaps have chosen to subvert them towards their own, egoistic ends. Manipulators of others for their own personal gain. Are they successful because they have secured their own, personal life expectancy and comfort? Or have they failed to see beyond their own mortality, and ensured that their legacy is minimal?

It's a complex question, I admit, because a manipulator who has a child raised to be a manipulator can arguably continue the success of the egoist ideal. And if I may be allowed to use a rather crude metaphor, the dark and light sides of the force as Star Wars knows it will suffice. The Dark side destroys itself, eventually. Whether or not a line of egoist people retains power & continues to flourish, it is practically an eventuality that they will be removed from any power they might have had, because people never enjoy being manipulated/used transparently to serve someone else's ends.

Let me sum up: Good needs some kind of measurability, regardless of moral position. Whether it is based on social expectations or personal ones, the results are the same, because selfless behavior (whether it is truly selfless or not) cements the bonds of an intensely social race of beings, and ensures their communal survival (or at least it would, in an unforgiving environment-- modern society allows for a greater deal of sway in moral ambiguity because our relative comfort is fairly well-established.)

Quote:

Of course there are also people that I wouldn't help. There's a category of favour that I would be willing to do for complete strangers, and it's pretty restricted. It does not, for example, run to substantial cash loans, or assistance with moving house. There's also a much less restricted category of favour that I would be willing to do for a friend or family member. Personally, I like that. I don't see any reason at all why it should be any different.

Pursuade me otherwise.

The understanding is that with enough time, anyone could become close enough to be your friend, and therefore deserves the benefit of the doubt. Which doesn't include giving cash loans to complete strangers, but neither does it mean you shouldn't help them fix a flat tire on the side of the road because you "don't know them."

Jam it back in, in the dark.