Is it more advantages to be good or evil.

Walking the middle path has been most advantageous for me. I enjoy helping others and even when I don't want to I feel an obligation to help those around me who need it. There is a limit to thos however amd my own welfare and happiness come first. I always try to act in a way rhat works out best for all involved. If I cannot find a way, then my own needs come first.

I walk a path
Of neither darkness nor light
When faced with a challenge
My heart knows what's right

I trust in the Force
And all that is true
I need only to focus
To feel what to do

I know others judge me
And I harbor no fear
I know through my actions
My intentions are clear

For good or for evil
For one or for all
What is the difference
I don't see one at all

May the Force be with you,
Rai

Vesha wrote:

ren wrote: It is more advantageous not to waste any time thinking about this.

The only way to know that is if you knew the outcome already and could calculate the cost and benefits of this mental exercise and compare it to something else we could be doing.

Seriously though if my hypothesis proves correct I could gain valuable insight into more persuasive arguments. Narva has made me think about how some people prefer to be selfless because it will be good for them in a supernatural way (never thought about that) while steamboat simply redefined the word selfish.

You run into these problems all the time, what do you do and why? Are you selfish because your trying to get ahead? Are you selfless because it makes you feel better? When you do someone a favor do you expect them to help you if you needed help? Where do you draw the line and why?

I'm seriously wondering what motivates people to act selfish or selfless because I'm not sure what the answer is.

I just do what I feel is right without wondering if it could be perceived as selfish, selfless, good or evil.
Do you ask if the sun is selfish or selfless? if it is good or evil?

The path we take is the path we feel is right. Just like we can only be what we are. Whether what you do is selfish, selfless for selfish reasons, or genuinely selfless, changes absolutely nothing to what it is you do.

ren wrote: I just do what I feel is right without wondering if it could be perceived as selfish, selfless, good or evil.
Do you ask if the sun is selfish or selfless? if it is good or evil?

The path we take is the path we feel is right. Just like we can only be what we are. Whether what you do is selfish, selfless for selfish reasons, or genuinely selfless, changes absolutely nothing to what it is you do.

If I could stand tall enough to whisper to the sun and make it give me shad when it was too hot and sunshine when it was too cold I would surely drown myself in wonder.

I do understand and envy the bliss of purely and simply living in the moment.

Evil in society gives short term benefit for long term detriment, whereas being good may not give you so much benefit in the short term but offers much greater benefit in the long term.

Individual rationality is the idea of pursuing things only as they are the greatest rational benefit to yourself.
Collective rationality is the idea of pursuing things only as they are the greatest rational benefit to yourself as part of a group.

If everyone behaved in a manner that was individually rational then trust simply would not exist. Why on earth would I let cleaners into my room? They might steal something while I wasn't there.

Society can only exist with trust. In the show "House M.D." House hates altruism and kindness, because those who act kindly will trust a man while he sleeps and wakes up with no food or wife (some paraphrase like that).
An argument seemingly countered by this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23529849

It can be advantageous to be evil, maybe for your entire life, but it is not advantageous for society (why do you think particular laws exist?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt1W0F0yObg

Objects are designed to break after a certain time or degrade otherwise we would never buy new ones. Is that a better situation than people living in such a way that we don't constantly demand more stuff?

If people lived sustainably such that they don't want more than they need then breaking a glass wouldn't be advantageous.

I'm not sure I agree with your definition that "evil = selfish" and "good = selfless". I'm sure we could generate plenty of examples that contradict those initial terms of reference.

Furthermore, your measuring stick of success "safety and happiness" are not that easy to quantify.

bard wrote: I'm not sure I agree with your definition that "evil = selfish" and "good = selfless". I'm sure we could generate plenty of examples that contradict those initial terms of reference.

Furthermore, your measuring stick of success "safety and happiness" are not that easy to quantify.

Then we'd argue semantics all day ,so let's just stick with that definition.

Is having behavior that is purely of self benefit more advantageous to ones self then putting others equal to or above you for a common good in the short term and long term? What do you choose and why?

Note: Like Bard, I found the wording off. Seems sensationalized for debate. So I reframed the original question. To remove the erroneous semantic issue.

I find that by putting others above myself, I am in fact putting myself along with them. Roommates for example. By putting their needs above my own and helping them around the house I find that rewards are bestowed upon me. The household (community) thrives which in turns means my living conditions thrive. Relationships, by putting the needs of my friends above my own current desire at the time (lending an ear, offering two cents, moving a couch) I find that again my own lot is improved. By being Selfless I am rewarded. Which in turn makes the actions Selfish. As I am fully aware of this cycle of give-and-take.

When we remove these sensationalized terms. We come to realize the issue isn't so black and light. Good and Evil are irrelevant terms. That there is a need for both elements in our lives. Take George R. Price. Man loved to give. Gave so much it cost him basically everything. He later committed suicide - many speculating, because he was no longer able to help those in need. The idea being the better position we are in life, the better we can help out. You cannot teach a man to fish, if you have no idea how to do so yourself. And what is better giving all your fish away and starving? Or enjoying your abundance of fish while you teach others how to collect their own?

World-Betterment Through Self-Betterment. It is not one or the another. It is not good vs. evil. It is not apathy vs. altruism. Harmony, Balance, both are equally important. There needs to be a focus on the self. And there should always be a focus on extending that outwardly. Helping others reach your level and beyond.

Oh if we're arguing semantics I prefer evil versus compassion, and good versus bad. For me 'evil versus good' is broken semantics (if that makes any sense). I thought the OP was about selfish v selflessness. I have noticed I always mention this when this topic comes up so sorry for being a broken record
:blush: