Benefit And Detriment. (Human Nature)

[ZenitYerkes]

I don't believe in the conception of good and evil, no. Why? If I stole the supermarket because I needed bread, it'd be horrible for you and the grocer. But for me, it'd be great, because then I could give some food to my starving family. Is it a bad action, or a good one?

I believe there is no such "good or bad" actions or people, there's benefit and detriment.

Every single action everyone does is made to achieve a benefit. A better situation. Thus, the subject always tends to act to reach this state; either instinctively or by their own will, either conscious or unconsciously. Also, the means used are which are in detriment.

In our previous example, the main end of the thief was to feed their family, the means were stealing the grocer. The benefited part is the thief and his family, the part in detriment is the grocer.

Thus, when we ask "benefit for who?", there two concepts appear: egoism and altruism.

Egoism means, I will only look for my own benefit. As I am looking for that, I won't use anything that could harm me as a means -unless it reports me a greater benefit; thus I use anyone's else's possessions to reach what I want.

Altruism means, I will look for the other's benefit only. Not even mine. So to reach that end, my means will be anything that couldn't harm them, beginning by my possessions.

These two concepts, specially altruism, barely appear alone. There is nobody who will only look for their own benefit without taking in count their beloved ones; or someone who is generous enough to even give their food away whilst starving. It is obvious that it is impossible to live being 100% egoist, and 100% altruist.

But how should we keep the proportion then? How egoist should we be, and how altruist?

Instinctively, we will tend to just look for on own good with exceptions (EG the instinct to protect the family). Our primitive mindset keeps us in a 20-80 altruist-egoist proportion.

Those who can get over it are able to live in greater societies. When we live together, we no longer work for ourselves and those with whom we have strong bonds, but rather for the whole clan, "polis", country or empire. Thus we even take decisions that can involve no benefit for us at all for a greater good, and the altruist-egoism balance may be in a 50-50. However, the risk of those who are in the power making their ruled ones work for them and taking decisions for them, acting selfishly, is big.

There are people who get further than that, who can individually give most of their resources away without any kind of social pressure or contract; simply because they empathize with the people suffering and see their needs. These people keep the altruist-egoist balance in an 80-20.

So, how should we act then? It is obvious that living together is easier if we have an altruist attitude, but is it necessarily the best option? If so (or if not), why, and how can we encourage people acting this way?