Virtues of the Selfish Bastard

The church is near, but the way is icy. The tavern is far, but I will walk carefully.
--Ukranian Proverb

Awesome Cacto!!

I don't believe Devil, I don't believe his words But the truth is inot the same without the lies he's made up

- U2 God part 2

God said: Man shall be good.
The Devil said: Man shall be man.

I happen to be one who believes that actual actions matter more than warm fuzzy words. But that's just me.

The problem with today's "virtue advocates" is that they think empty but pleasing rhetoric matters more than deeds that benefit society.

Meanwhile, the so-called compassionate people will mortage society's future in the name of being labeled kind, compassionate, and noble while the "evil bastards" of the world are doing the actual work of making the world a better place for everyone.

 

The church is near, but the way is icy. The tavern is far, but I will walk carefully.

Exactly. Plenty of time to pray when you're dead, but beer and women don't last. You've got to get in quick.

Xythe: I have musical differences with U2 - I think they're overrated and, frankly, shit - but they have a point. How can anyone be virtuous without sin? Why not have the sin at 90% and the virtue at 10%?

I happen to be one who believes that actual actions matter more than warm fuzzy words. But that's just me.

Excellent! It's very hard to sin when you're only prepared to use words. It's not impossible - I suppose you could do a Socrates and corrupt the youth - but it ain't easy. I'm glad to hear you're prepared to do more in service of selfishness.

The problem with today's "virtue advocates" is that they think empty but pleasing rhetoric matters more than deeds that benefit society.

Ah yes. But it's the key to being a modern selfish bastard. Without the empty, hypocritical rhetoric you'll never be able to find an excuse for the dead hooker in the bathtub.

Meanwhile, the so-called compassionate people will mortage society's future in the name of being labeled kind, compassionate, and noble while the "evil bastards" of the world are doing the actual work of making the world a better place for everyone.

Hmmm, I thought you understood what I was saying until this. You shouldn't be trying to make the world a better place at all. If it somehow occurs while you're snorting blow off a hooker's back or firing rifle shots from the balcony at a parade then all well and good. But selfish bastards only talk about making the world a better place; you should never actually aim to do anything about it.

wanna be real evil? follow whips advice but write them a bad check.

You got hookers on the brain again, cacto?

Not just on the brain-izzle but on the train, on the plane, on the mane... it's all good-izzle.*

wanna be real evil? follow whips advice but write them a bad check.

Nah man, they pay me. A life of sin leads to devilish good looks, and devilish good looks are better than hard currency when it comes to easin' the sleaze.


*In accordance with the Pimps and Hoes Act of 2005 (DOGG, NY (R)) random izzles have been added to this statement.

Excellent! It's very hard to sin when you're only prepared to use words. It's not impossible - I suppose you could do a Socrates and corrupt the youth - but it ain't easy. I'm glad to hear you're prepared to do more in service of selfishness.

One of the reasons I disdain "compassion" and "charity" is that they've been hijacked by people who think that compassion and charity are about saying nice things and intending only good but in reality accomplishing very little.

Here's the crux of the issue for me: The people who think that good deeds mean nothing unless there is "sacrifice" involved. 

I don't do "good deeds" as a sacrifice. I do them because they make me feel good about myself.

I don't do "good deeds" as a sacrifice. I do them because they make me feel good about myself.

Exactly. If it feels good do it. Self-sacrifice in aid of others should be discarded with all those other tired old-fashioned notions, like compassion, forgiveness and love for one's fellow man/woman/child in need. Something to talk about over a good cognac and a cigar, but never to actually do. Mud might get on one's clothes, there may be unwanted pain/heartache, poverty might really be catching etc, and where's the pleasure in that?

Oh, I suppose a masochist might get a kick, but there's no point structuring society around but a single flavour of sex. It would make life like an icecream store that only sells boysenberry. Not exactly plain and boring, but limited none-the-less.

No, doing good without getting a hefty reward is utterly undesirable to a properly structured soul. It combines all the awfulness of duty with no tangible benefit, and the sooner everyone learns to accept the modern way of virtuous selfishness the sooner we'll be able to do really depraved things without adverse effect.

Hobo fight anyone?

Exactly. If it feels good do it. Self-sacrifice in aid of others should be discarded with all those other tired old-fashioned notions, like compassion, forgiveness and love for one's fellow man/woman/child in need. Something to talk about over a good cognac and a cigar, but never to actually do. Mud might get on one's clothes, there may be unwanted pain/heartache, poverty might really be catching etc, and where's the pleasure in that?

(sarcasm mode on)

Right. Because compassion, forgiveness, and love for one's fellow person isn't based on how we actually behave towards those people but rather how we FEEL.

It's not about good works. It's about good feelings.

If we see some poor woman on the side of the road in distress, it doesn't matter whether we help her or not. Only if we feel sorry for her and hope that someone helps her.

The person who actually does stop and help the person isn't really compassionate because they're probably doing it not as a sacrifice but instead because they feel that what makes them a good person is doing good deeds (like helping others).  If they're getting something out of it, it's not true compassion.

The path to true compassion is just to care a whole lot. Actions are irrelevant. Actions are a remnant of a bygone era. Actions are for animals. Truly enlightened people know that intentions are what matter. As long as we mean well, that's really what counts.

That rich bastard who creates jobs and creates opportunity is soulless compared to today's modern liberal who has the courage to speak (loudly) their convictions that we need to care more about the less fortunate.  Sure, the rich bastard might also help set up an education program for inner city schools but that's not compassionate -- they admit it themselves that they do it to help society produce better workers for tomorrow.

True compassion is giving the man who has done nothing to earn it the last fish that you caught after a hard day's work because he needs it.  Meanwhile, the greedy evil bastard would keep the fish and teach the man how to fish and then try to employ him in his fishing boat.

The beauty of the modern liberal is that it is a much fairer system. Everyone has the capacity to feel compassionate. By contrast, not everyone can or even wants to actually do anything that produces real results. How fair is that?  Should compassion and charity be restricted only to those who have the capability to produce results? No! NO!  Compassion and charity is something we can all feel without having to lift a finger.

Huh? Where did that rant come from? This article is supposed to be light and frivolous. I am advocating doing whatever you feel like and then justifying your pleasure-seeking with selfish virtue, which is my favourite 21st century vogue. I have no idea what that has to do with modern liberals, benevolent corporate types and people who only have the courage to speak.

Let's be wholly clear - I'm arguing for vice veiled with virtue, not preachiness backed up with mundanity and an appalling lack of courage (which seems to be what your ranting against). Relax, Brad. Take it easy. I'm not talking about you or whatever it is that brought on your mid-life angst.

Do you believe that people really do anything that they don't feel is in their own self interest? I don't.

Conscience? Pride? Ego? Maybe the idea that someday you'll be well remembered?

I'm a devout Machiavellian Whip, and I don't think that is as bad a thing as people tend to make it. I think when people feel that they "should" be charitable or kind, there are reasons pertaining to their own personal self image that drive them. Frankly, I think the less people have a self-interest in charity the less charitable they are.

I know it sounds jaded, but it isn't. We're biological creatures functioning on billions of years of genetic programming. Altruism, I believe, is the "right" mode of operation, but when I say that I associate myself as being "right" and the uncharitable as being "wrong". Can you really say that there's no internal, personal payoff to what you do, even if it is just solidifying who you believe yourself to be?

I think that if people accept that, they are a lot more likely to devote themselves to altruism that actually works. It's all about 'know thyself' to me. If I accept that I have a selfish instinct for altruism, I'm a lot more likely to devote myself to endeavors that will give me the most bang for my buck, instead of letting subliminal drive lead me wherever.

Look at it in terms of suicide bombers. We hear all time time about how selfless they are. Do you really believe that, or do you believe that their programming has taught them that the "best" people discard that hold on life to fight for a greater cause? You don't think being the "best" people is a personal incentive?

"Hardly seems 'altruistic' to me...or even in the best interests of their countrymen or themselves. Then again, I never could get my head around zealotry."

Neither does most charity to me, that was my point. Charity is as much about what the act says about us, even if it is only saying it TO us, as it does about helping people, I think. Humans have a need to be "better" otherwise we'd have always taken the easy and chaotic way. I think we know at a biological level that altruism is "right", so even when there's no apparent payoff we still head in that direction.

...and if you believe that God is the author of our biology, you can say both at the same time.

Do you believe that people really do anything that they don't feel is in their own self interest? I don't.

I do. I think quite highly of people as individuals. It's only en masse that they become selfish buggers.

Hardly seems 'altruistic' to me...or even in the best interests of their countrymen or themselves. Then again, I never could get my head around zealotry.

I reckon suicide bombers/grenade jumpers/anyone else who gives their life in service of another are largely driven by hope, that their sacrifice will achieve something meaningful. What that has to do with altruism I don't claim to know.

That "still, small voice" thing, hmm? I suppose some would call it a biological imperative, others would call it 'God.'

I'd call it conditioning from the few individuals in society who are born with a soul. How many people are virtuous solely because vice is so hard? It's the examples of the saints and the punishments of the influenced tyrants that keep us good, not any inherent goodness in the majority.

Don't ya just hate it when a humorous bit goes all serious on ya?

It's annoying, I'll grant you that. Obviously virtue and vice are a button issue for some people.

"I reckon suicide bombers/grenade jumpers/anyone else who gives their life in service of another are largely driven by hope, that their sacrifice will achieve something meaningful. What that has to do with altruism I don't claim to know."

I faltered and went back and checked the definition of altruism:

"unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others".

That sounds a lot like people who kill themselves hoping it "will achieve something meaningful". They see how martyrs are remembered, hailed, carried around in effigy after their deaths by the lauding, hateful masses. If you can't see the selfishness in wanting to be remembered that way I don't know how you can miss it.

Exactly. It doesn't seem very altruistic to me. Altruism, compassion, love, forgiveness - they're all horribly outdated concepts that have no place in modern life. As modern men and women we reject them utterly. It's only by doing what we want that we can, well, do what we want.

Huh? Where did that rant come from? This article is supposed to be light and frivolous. I am advocating doing whatever you feel like and then justifying your pleasure-seeking with selfish virtue, which is my favourite 21st century vogue. I have no idea what that has to do with modern liberals, benevolent corporate types and people who only have the courage to speak. Let's be wholly clear - I'm arguing for vice veiled with virtue, not preachiness backed up with mundanity and an appalling lack of courage (which seems to be what your ranting against). Relax, Brad. Take it easy. I'm not talking about you or whatever it is that brought on your mid-life angst.

My response was supposed to be humorous too. I was trying to be clear it was meant to be humorous by explicitly stating imy response was sarcastic.  Sorry!

sorry for coming in so late, but i just had to say something ... this is wonderful! i adored it. you have to be very deep to make light of such shallowness. (i should know).

great stuff, cacto.

mig xxx

Thanks Mig, but trust me - I'm so shallow that deep thoughts barely even pause on their way straight through my head. My only depth is in my unswerving devotion to irrelevencies.

Do you believe that people really do anything that they don't feel is in their own self interest? I don't.

Bingo!


Cacto - this was a good read and for the cynic in each one of us (plural in me) a good giggle!

Have a very happy christmas and don't get too much sun!