Capitalism is one of the few social constructs that encourages negative traits. Who is to say that selfishness is better than altruism? Altruism seems to be a human trait as well -- we do act altruistically on occassion. Is it impossible to build a financial system based on altruism? We tend to think quite highly of those who give of themselves more than take. Why don't we build a financial system that rewards those who think of others? Is such a system impossible?
Society rests on and perhaps morality itself is based on the repression of innate desires. Males have a desire to procreate, but rape is forbidden. We have a desire to promote the success of those with our genes, but discrimination is forbidden. I would say our society is better off because we shun, outlaw, and degrade the exercise of traits we would like to see less of in those who share our society with us.
Humans are at a crossroads here. We have the knowledge, the vision, and the power to evolve ourselves into the species we choose to be. Why, if there is an alternative, would we choose to create a system that rewards those for behaving in a manner that we don't like, in a manner that we would like to see less of?
Imagine saying, "You're so greedy!" Now imagine saying, "You're so giving!" It's a totally different feeling. Imagine a society that promotes the giving over promoting the greedy.
Capitalism creates an environment where both positive and negative traits can be materialized. Everyone agrees that altruism is better than selfishness in moral sense. However one must be quite civilized and have high quality of life and standard of living to exercise altruism. Those whose individual demands are not met simply cannot afford altruism. A financial system aimed at rewarding those who think of others (surprise!) exists right now. Those who have extra money, time or other resources can invest them in those who are in need through loans, grants and scholarships. I'm sure any innovative ideas in this area would be accepted by the HN community and society in general. This proves that the current society/economy is open for a change toward a more altruism-encouraging system.
Western society and morality is based on the relative tolerance to innate human desires and wishes in contrast to other cultures. That's why it has created a financial system that made the countries that chose it developed.
"Males have a desire to procreate, but rape is forbidden. We have a desire to promote the success of those with our genes, but discrimination is forbidden."
Morality restricts certain ways in which a human can fulfill their needs. However rape is not the only way to procreate and discrimination has very little to do with promoting the success of one's genes. Today's social and financial system is successful among other factors because it provides equal and legitimate ways to have sex or multiply for everyone.
We are at crossroads, we have opportunity to choose the way financial system would look like in the future and that's why it is especially important to understand why the current financial system is successful. It is, despite difficulties, which, for example led only to a 2% drop in US GDP growth rate in 2008 compared to 2005. The GDP is still increasing! You can have look at http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=353&co... (US GDP statistics) to see how stable economy is. These disturbances are annoying, but their impact on lifestyle is minor.
"Imagine saying, "You're so greedy!" Now imagine saying, "You're so giving!" It's a totally different feeling. Imagine a society that promotes the giving over promoting the greedy."
What does this have to do with the initial argument? Could you please point out where I disagreed with this?
> However one must be quite civilized and have high quality of life and standard of living to exercise altruism.
Not necessarily. There are plenty of people that have nothing that still devote time/money into helping others before themselves.
I hate to reference the Bible, but there was a parable in there about a woman donating 2 cents to the poor verses wealthy men donating piles of money (I think this was 'bags of silver pieces or something like that). She gave more than they did if you consider the percentage of their total assets/worth that was donated.
I wouldn't rely on poor people's altruism as on a valuable contribution to others. Even if giving those 2 cents was an important decision for the woman considering her poorness, the piles given out by a richer man were much more valuable. It is absolute value of a contribution that matters for a receiver of good here.
That may be, but the original statement said that one needed to be 'rich' to exercise altruism, and despite the downmodding of my previous comment that point still stands.
Who is to say that selfishness is better than altruism? Altruism seems to be a human trait as well -- we do act altruistically on occassion.
It's not clear to me whether that's a bug or a feature. Most cases in which altruism would be possible in the ancestral environment are cases in which acting "altruistically" actually benefits the actor in the long run. We're now in a world where it's less clear that those actions will benefit the actor (or actor's genes), on balance. Altruism does result in arguably worse outcomes in many cases (food aid to Africa, liberating Iraq, etc) in the modern world.
Is it impossible to build a financial system based on altruism?
Well, it doesn't seem stable. A financial system based on self-interest is stable when there are a few people with altruistic motives in the system. A financial system based on altruism would rapidly fail in the presence of a few self-interested people in the system.
> We have a desire to promote the success of those with our genes, but discrimination is forbidden.
How so? Am I not allowed to be a white male that exclusively dates white females? Is there affirmative action for dating/mating now?
Discrimination is forbidden in ways that have nothing to do with genes and evolution. Do you really think that the KKK was all about 'promoting better genes?' In modern times, they may have convinced themselves of this but it is bunk science. Neo-Nazies, skinheads, KKK members, all of them discriminate against others, not because they want to 'get rid of others to promote their genes.'
And you say 'those with our genes,' but that normally means one's offspring. Even within the same 'tribes,' preference is given to one's offspring above all else.
This has more to do with human nature to want to join a community and exclude others, which is closer to our warring nature than anything to do with procreation.
Altruism require giving away resource with no expectation of benefit. So in short, it is sucide of the individual if practiced to extreme.
A more substainable form is voluntary exchanges in which individuals exchange good and services for their percevied benefit. That's cooperation based on "stratching your back, you stratch my back".
Also note that individuals are what composed of groups. They are the smallest building block of society. Focus on them, and you benefit the group. The ideal situtation is that you would never need to sacrifice an individual for the whole group.
Society rests on and perhaps morality itself is based on the repression of innate desires. Males have a desire to procreate, but rape is forbidden. We have a desire to promote the success of those with our genes, but discrimination is forbidden. I would say our society is better off because we shun, outlaw, and degrade the exercise of traits we would like to see less of in those who share our society with us.
Humans are at a crossroads here. We have the knowledge, the vision, and the power to evolve ourselves into the species we choose to be. Why, if there is an alternative, would we choose to create a system that rewards those for behaving in a manner that we don't like, in a manner that we would like to see less of?
Imagine saying, "You're so greedy!" Now imagine saying, "You're so giving!" It's a totally different feeling. Imagine a society that promotes the giving over promoting the greedy.