Number One

[NuclearTBag]

Is there something wrong with looking out for number one(no not god your self). If so, why? I mean I figured out a long time ago that the goal in life is to not die, so why is that wrong?

[em200727]

Eh I still think its lame that he let a creation get strong enough to screw up even nature.

DO NOT try and blame God for the state the world is in. it is NO ONE elses fault but ours!

[McCulloch]

Eh I still think its lame that he let a creation get strong enough to screw up even nature.

DO NOT try and blame God for the state the world is in. it is NO ONE elses fault but ours!

Yet most christians claim that their god is a just and fair god who created the world and has amazing powers of knowing the end from the beginning. So the question remains why such a god would set up this world in such a way that those who are created in his image could completely destroy it. Why do the Kurdish children suffer the consequences of the deforestation done to their lands at least a millennium ago? I agree with em200727 that the fault for the state of the world is largely humanity's because if there were a god with the characteristics postulated by christian theology, the world would not have been designed to get into this state.

[em200727]

So the question remains why such a god would set up this world in such a way that those who are created in his image could completely destroy it.

because He created us to have free will. He is not a God who is going to create us and make us worship Him, that is our choice, and adam and eve chose to disobey sin was brought into the world and you kno the rest

[Dilettante]

I figured out a long time ago that the goal in life is to not die

That is self-defeating. It's an impossible goal since we are all mortal.

Is it wrong to be self-centered? By nature's standards, certainly not. We can see survival of the fittest in action every time we gaze out our window. The animal best suited to it's environment lives, while the unfit dies out. These better suited animals make no effort to help the unsuited, for doing that would be unbeneficial to themselves.

Yet there are times when self-sacrificing behaviors are the ones which maximize the chances of survival for our genes. In the natural world what's important is not so much the survival of the individual, but for that individual to pass his/her genes on to the next generation. English biologist J B S Haldane famously said, "I will lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins". An interesting article by the late Stephen Jay Gould on this topic is the one entitled "So Cleverly Kind an Animal".

Perhaps we were given the power of empathy because that in ITSELF is a suitable trait which has enabled us to survive millions of years. Why are we not still simple un-reasoning organisms such as fish, insects, and birds, who all know no sympathy? Might we have evolved these unique traits (or given by a creator, whichever viewpoint you prefer) for a reason?

That's a very interesting observation. I'll think about it.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

That is self-defeating. It's an impossible goal since we are all mortal.

Yeah but, try telling that to say, a platypus. Most animals probably can't grasp the concept of mortality, and lack the reasoning or intuition to figure it out. Instinct tells them to stay away from or fight against forces or conditions that may take their life. The primal impulse is "don't die".

IMO, NuclearTBag's belief is predominantly correct on an individual level, however, an organism's greater purpose in nature is (I would assume) as you said, to pass on genes.



The more I think about it, the more my observation (or whatever you want to call it) makes sense. Humans have prospered over the past couple centuries mostly thanks to medical advances, which probably never would have come about had their not been the human capability of empathy. There were probably a few primal, self-centered causes to that revolution of course. But then I think back to that National Geographic article that gave evidence for the evolutionary adaptation of human compassion that came about however many thousands of years ago, can't recall exactly when. If that empathetic trait proved to be a disadvantage towards our survival, wouldn't it have died out and been replaced with more dominant genes? Compassion seems crutial to the success of our species, and I would urge that we continue it's practice.

I don't profess to be particularly kowledgable on subject of biology though, so their may very well be a few flaws in the theory.

[Leon_Magnus]

Eh I still think its lame that he let a creation get strong enough to screw up even nature.

DO NOT try and blame God for the state the world is in. it is NO ONE elses fault but ours!

Yet most christians claim that their god is a just and fair god who created the world and has amazing powers of knowing the end from the beginning. So the question remains why such a god would set up this world in such a way that those who are created in his image could completely destroy it. Why do the Kurdish children suffer the consequences of the deforestation done to their lands at least a millennium ago? I agree with em200727 that the fault for the state of the world is largely humanity's because if there were a god with the characteristics postulated by christian theology, the world would not have been designed to get into this state.

Well I didn't really blame him. I just have a theory that he had assigned different angles to different tasks. Jesus was assigned to create everything. Other angles designed stuff while others were designed to be the connection to the "spirit" and "physical" realm. I guess one of the angles who had this task became satan. Now since he isn't really a big bad "demon" looking thing as people potray him, he probably has powers of psuedo goodness or decieving light.
I always wondered why an angle had powers that could rival its creators. God basically let him take control of the world. I wondered why. I also wondered why people thought God would let the person who start all this stay around and torture people for eternity. Maybe his goal is not truly to get people to hell where he can toture them, but to keep them from knowing god so they can be destoryed with him when the time comes. Kind of the "If I can't rule the world and live, I'll take everyone with me!" scenario. I guess so that when he and he cronies (whether they be humans or "demons") gets destoryed there is no excuse for anyone to turn into the next satan and be given time to prove their false point. (I personal feel 1,000 years is enough time to proove that satan world sucks, but I'm not God.) Because he already prooved that the world wont work without God's guidance and only his.
I mean this is what I think the whole God vs Satan thing is really about.

[Bugmaster]

Is there something wrong with looking out for number one(no not god your self). If so, why? I mean I figured out a long time ago that the goal in life is to not die, so why is that wrong?

Actually, I think that all the altruists in the world today are also looking out for "number one", just indirectly. Helping people makes you feel good, so you help people in order to feel better.

As I see it, there's nothing wrong with that. I don't think that an idividual's motivations matter at all -- only his actions. One's actions are the only thing that can affect other people, after all; what you think to yourself in your own head is relevant only to you.

[Arya]

Is there something wrong with looking out for number one(no not god your self). If so, why? I mean I figured out a long time ago that the goal in life is to not die, so why is that wrong?

Considering that yes, in the basest sense everyone needs to think of themselves on a daily basis (need to eat, drink, etc) just to meet the basest of needs. But if we all lived a completely nomadic and independent lifestyle of others we probably wouldn't have to think any further than that.

But we are a very socially interactive species, and we depend upon others for our other basic needs (love, social interaction, acceptance, etc). That forces us to have to consider others aside from ourselves if we want to coexist within society.

How we decide to socially interact, either in a positive or in a negative manner, holds a direct impact on how we in turn are treated by others.

[Scrotum]

Wow, that's a scary thought. What would the world look like if the only thing people thought about were themselves?

Answer: United States.....

Massive poverty, Huge discrimination, Huge Financial gaps, Religion, And a blind faith that your country is the best in the world....


My 20 cent

[Chad]

Is there something wrong with looking out for number one(no not god your self). If so, why? I mean I figured out a long time ago that the goal in life is to not die, so why is that wrong?

While, like others have said, it's fine to look out for yourself. However, there is a point where it just doesn't work. Those who look out for themselves and neglect others or just plain don't care about others will have a poor chance at survival. How will they expect to be helped if they find themselves in a bad situation but everyone around them knows what kind of attitude they have? Of course, this sort of action is that of reciprocal altruism. So in a sense you're still just looking out for youself. The goal in life (If you consider there is one) from a biological aspect would be to stay alive long enough to reproduce, IMO, not just "To not die".