Negative Pain

[[CAKE]rUsh]

I went through your article and added comment. My apologies in advance if anything I said was too harsh.

In today’s society, at least in the more developed countries, we think wholeheartedly that we are givers of human rights that look out for the less fortunate, be it through domestic programs, international NGO’s, or through religious organizations. Unfortunately, if you look deep into the reasons for these actions, you will find that the sole purpose of these actions, and of all human actions in general are not altruistic, they are purely selfish acts designed to give pleasure to the person acting.

All of the acts people commit are selfish acts. Let’s take a look at some “altruistic” behavior and figure out what is the real meaning behind it.
When someone donates money to an organization that helps feed the poor, you would think that this is a person who understands the suffering of others and wishes to help out. I wish to say that the main reason this person is sending money to this organization is to give themselves a sense of power, power that wrongly makes them think that they are changing the world. They can now feel good about themselves because they have “eased the suffering” of others. Now let me explain the difference. In the first “ideal” situation, the main reason for the person sending the money is to help out the poor and understands and sympathizes with the hungry. In the second, the person sending the money’s main motive is to feel good about helping out someone.

It looks to me that you're using an "I am the world" arguement here. While this statement may be true it is unlikely that it is true for all people. I highly suggest you change it so that it applies to only part of the population. (i.e. "I wish to say that the main reason most people are sending money to this organization is to..." or "some people are sending money to...")

Let’s take another example. A candidate for senate is running for a seat. He stands up and says, “Abortion is wrong. We need to protect the lives of the unborn.” To the unenlightened person, you would think that this person has a strong passion for the rights of the unborn. When you take a closer look at it, you see that the main reason someone says something like that, especially in a senate campaign, is to gain respect from voters and social acceptance among them. He hopes that people go home and talk about how compassionate and loving he is.

Now how can I say these things without actually knowing these people? How is it that you feel “compassion” and “love” at certain times when you act a certain way? We as a society have been lying to ourselves. We have been trying to mask our true feelings in order to satisfy our consciences. We have come up with these words to rationalize our true behaviors. In this world, there is no love, no compassion or friendship. These are just made up words. In principle, they are wonderful ideas, if they were ever put into practice, we might actually have a great society. But we are stuck living selfish lives, wondering what we can get for ourselves.
This sounds like a terrible way to live. How can we change things? How can we start living selfishly? Well, this is where we will pick up next week and delve into the political implications of this theory.

I think you mean "How can we stop living selfishly". Which I'm pretty sure is impossible. People will always do what makes them feel good or what doesn't make them feel bad. What you'd really want to do is change peoples values such that they put more value into the well being of others rather than their own power, glory or wealth.

How can we start thinking about other people and not about ourselves? Well, in order to do this, we need major changes in our political system, mainly the judicial system. But first, we need some background to understand why I am going to proclaim certain things need to change.
Our economic system is based on the principle that the strong will survive and the weak will fall. Does this sound familiar to anyone? Reminds me of the ideas of a man named Darwin. Only the strong shall survive. The ones who are not meant to be will perish. We already use this Darwinist point of view in our economic system, our beloved free market system that other countries have emulated for years. We now need to spread this Darwinist view to our social atmosphere. The people whose actions were purely altruistic will survive and those who actions are not, will be punished. We have to help along this survival of the fittest to cultivate the actions that we want. Nature itself will not do this because of the evil already in the world. Since people are already selfish and evil, if let alone, we will not become a truly altruistic society. Look at the world right now for a clear example. How do we decide what ideas and actions we want to cultivate? We must decide what things will best benefit the majority of the community.

Firstly why are you saying evil here? I'd guess it's to enunciate your point but it seems somewhat akin to preaching original sin. I really don't see why it is needed for your arguement.

The Darwinest theory of those that prosper survive is only used in economic theory up to a point where the government steps in and will prevent the company from doing actions that inhibit new companies in the same field from starting up. And we do indeed have the same sort of structure in the social world. Most things that directly harm a person are illegal and the government will dish out punishments for those actions.

"We now need to spread this Darwinist view to our social atmosphere.'
"We have to help along this survival of the fittest to cultivate the actions that we want."
Please don't invalidate your own statements. It is pointless to help the fittest as they are by definition that which will survive on its own and does not need help. If you are saying that we should help something weaker survive then you are argueing against the Darwinist theory of the strong survive.

"free market system that other countries have emulated for years"
I just personally don't like this and doubt that it is the least bit accurate but that's a whole other arguement and it's likely to be crowd pleasing.

How do we decide what is best for the whole community? How do we decide what is better for one group over the other? Well, by minimizing the pain (“pain being the opposite of “pleasure”) for other people, we can then create the most happiness for everyone. If an action that somebody does hurts someone else (gives them pain), then that action should be purged. Now pain does not just mean physical pain. Any uncomfortable action can be deemed as pain. Now, I am not saying that if someone feels uncomfortable because they enjoy killing masses of people that we should let them. Everyone has the right to live, unless they violate someone else’s right to live freely.

Now, in order to make sure that everyone’s pain is minimized, remembering that we are selfish in nature and evil, we must enact certain laws to protect everyone from everyone else. Now we as a society must be willing to give up certain rights that we have in order to establish an altruistic pattern of behavior. We must also be willing to follow laws that appear to be inane to someone who is not ready to set their mind completely on others and leave this selfish society behind.

It almost sounds like you're making an arguement for a big brother kind of world here....

Types of laws we need to enact in order to further our society to one that is evolved into an altruistic society are ones that punish people whose actions are not focused on others. Obviously, murder is an action that causes pain to others. All persons involved in a murder will be put to death. Now I know that sounds harsh but if you take away the rights of another person to live, then you have given the government or body in charge the authority to punish you as such. You are giving away your right to life by taking away someone else’s. All crimes that violate a child warrant death as well. If you take advantage of a child, someone who is young and cannot stand up for themselves, then there is no way that you can learn to act altruistically. There are many other laws that we already have that should be punished more than they already are so I will not go into those. Education about how to put others before yourself needs to be enacted in every school system and for adults, if needed. Many other things need to be punished by fines that are not crimes now. I personally love the idea of free speech, but if your speech is intended to directly hurt someone and upset them, then that should be punished. We are trying to create a “utopia” for everyone and I believe that this speech or thoughts can be eradicated if we all try to understand and respect everyone.

Forgive my ignorance but isn't verbal abuse already punishable in some way?
Free speech is far too valueable an idea to suggest tampering with. Should openly disagreeing with authority be punishable then it is likely that those that disagree will take more drastic measures to get their changes done.

So why is it that we need to fine and punish people for things that should be practiced in everyday life? We have to remember that we are selfish and evil by nature and therefore we can only learn by receiving “pain” to teach us what is right. By having this happen repeatedly, we can modify people’s behaviors to think about others and not themselves. I believe that we need to get to this state, and I am willingly to do whatever is necessary to bring us there. It doesn’t matter what we do to get there; the only thing that matters is that we get there.

"therefore we can only learn by receiving “pain” to teach us what is right"
This is completely and horribly wrong. We can also learn through pleasure. Infact this is the best way to learn things. Negative reinforcement should be used as a last resort in most situations. If you do something and feel good then there's a good chance you'll do the same thing if presented with a similiar situation. If you do something and are punished for it then you will try and avoid doing that thing while whoever punished you is around.

Let’s move on to the final product – what we can get out of this. The whole point of issuing these new laws and new way of thinking is to bring about a real change in our nature itself. We can bring about true friendship as opposed to what we have now. Friendship will be known as giving everything for somebody and not expecting anything in return, inherently or not. Can you imagine a world where everybody understood everyone and acted to bring the least amount of pain for everyone? We can then truly say we are civilized.