wcknight:
One of Karl Marx’s major points is that people exists only to further the goal of society and not the personal benefits of any one individual. A seemingly worthy goal until one figures out that there is no real reason to make society better if an individual has no personal stake in the results.
There is the possibility that if society advances enough, both socially and technologically, one might be able to create immortality in the physical world, on Earth. A number of scientists suggest we’re approaching that point now, between nanotechnology, human/machine integration, and the biotech revolution.
Even if I can’t garauntee my own continued existence after biological death, I might be able to help make it happen for my grandkids.
Afterall why should anyone work harder for the good of society. when after you die all your hard work has gone for nought. Would it not be far more logical to do whatever gives yourself gratification and forget about what helps anyone else ? Afterall, you have absolutely nothing to gain by working more diligently to help the masses.
Well, speaking purely on the level of self-interest, even in an arbitrary world with no meaning or justice, you’re probably better off to further a society in which altruism is encouraged – because it increases the likelihood of someone else helping you if and when you need help.
“Look out for number one” only really works in a context where hardly anyone does that. If everyone looks out for number one, everyone’s in pretty deep trouble.
I suppose it can be argued that a good deed done by an atheist is the most altruistic of all good deeds (if they can see no favorable return), since they have absolutely no reason to expect any benefit from it.
I’ve thought that, too. I sometimes wonder how many Christians would continue to live by their morals if they didn’t expect any heaven or hell at the end of it.
(I think you’d be surprised how many would, though. Afterlife or not, that conscience thing is sort of hard to shake.)
On the other hand, they also have far less incentives to abide by moral or civil laws. IF they believe there are no lasting consequences for their actions, what is it that prevents them from going off the deep end ? Why not rip people off, or why not do anything and everything that you can get away with ?
Speaking for myself – Because I’d feel guilty if I hurt someone (either physically or by taking their things or whatever.) Not because I think I’ve sinned against my Creator or anything like that. It has nothing to do with my Creator. I’ve sinned against my victim, which is bad enough.
If you can empathize with the people around you, it’s difficult to hurt them, even if there’s no big meaning. Even if I could get away with it, I’d still have to live with myself.
