Obama Nails his Faith

[The Atheist]

Honestly though, even if we don't actually disagree here, I still can't see why you initially said you can base humanistic values on evolutionary success. Since it was a short comment, it sounded like you were making bolder claims than you really were. Now that you've explained your position, I'm left wondering why you even said it in the first place. I mean, it's obvious that every single thing we do is a result of evolution. In that sense, all behavior is based on evolutionary success. It's just a truism, and I don't see why it's even worth mentioning in the context of this discussion.

You can't see why I used evolution, but it's so obvious it's not worth mentioning? Which one should I answer?

Nor do I see how you can think arthwollipot expressed a beautiful truth when he said that Obama should help people because that's the right thing to do.

I was actually counterpointing that it's a lot better to think it's right because he's taking a humanistic view rather than a theistic one. After christ knows how many years of bible-thumpers, that's beautiful to me.

Certainly, in the cold analysis of objectivity and evolution, you can say there is no "right" thing to do, but as I said, we have society and we can either embrace it or leave it. If someone is unable to use cultural mores to form an idea of what constitutes good and bad, I can't educate them.

Another point seems to have passed you by completely. We have no idea what is and isn't advantageous from an evolutionary perspective, but it could well be that our unique ability to shape the world we live in is an evolutionary advantage.

Obama will either help people because that's what he wants to do, or he won't because that's not what he wants. "Because that's the right thing to do" is no justification at all, because he will only think it's right if he's already inclined to do it in the first place, or if he's been convinced that there is in fact an external source of morality.

People have been known to change their minds based on evidence.

But his posts did seem to point to the idea that morality exists without the individuals and institutions that enforce it, while paradoxically not having any external basis. If I'm not mistaken, that could only be true if all individuals intrinsically had the same communal values, in which case what is good for society would indeed be what is good for each individual.

There seems to be enough link between morals and instinctive behaviour that we can claim hard-wiring for at least some of it.

 

[arthwollipot]

Care to explain why? The only difference I can think of is that society exists, so it can actually attempt to punish you if you go out of line.

You're really not getting it, are you?

But what is good? What gives you, or any civilization on this planet for that matter, the authority to categorize something as good, or evil?

The people within society determine whether it is good - by whether they are prosperous or suffering in poverty, whether they are healthy and clean or filthy and diseased, whether they are happy or whether they are bitter or resentful. A happy, healthy, prosperous society is what emerges when the society adopts a moral code that we in this thread define as "good".

Your premise that the survival and progression of our species is good is based in subjectivity, and it has weight only because the majority of people agree with you. This means that if tomorrow the majority of people suddenly thought heads was tails and tails was heads, then so be it. But surely that cannot be right?

Such a scenario cannot, and will not, happen. Sure, societies can change - look at how Hitler changed Germany in the 1930s. But was that really that big a change? The leaders of Germany adopted a moral code that we now define as "evil" but did the entire country do so? I think not. I think most German civilians acted out of the fear of retibution rather than because they thought that the wholesale murder of Jews was "good".

Fortunately for our species, (and coincidentally?) the majority of us do think murder, cutting in line, thievery, et cetera, are wrong without being told so by other human beings; this is called the law of nature.

It's far from being coincidental. These things make for a poor society. Poor society makes for unwealthy, unhealthy, unhappy people. It's a logical consequence of peoples' desire to be wealthy, healthy and happy that these things are considered "evil" by most members of our society.

In short, "good" morals make society work better.

Most biologists believe that it was developed over time through the process called evolution because it aided in the survival of our species. However, you cannot get an ought from a cold unguided process like evolution (an is). That is to say you cannot derive ethics or moral obligation from evolution unless it is a tool of God.

Untrue. It's very easy for evolution to influence behaviour. We see altruism in social species all the time. Richard Dawkins' famous book The Selfish Gene is all about the evolution of social altruism.

 

[Rairun]

You can't see why I used evolution, but it's so obvious it's not worth mentioning? Which one should I answer?

It's a bit like saying you can base humanistic values on gravity. All values are indeed "based" on gravity, in the sense that we wouldn't even exist if there was no gravity. That claim adds very little to the discussion, though. That's why I misunderstood it at first.

I was actually counterpointing that it's a lot better to think it's right because he's taking a humanistic view rather than a theistic one. After christ knows how many years of bible-thumpers, that's beautiful to me.

True enough. I do prefer a humanistic view in favor of a fundamentalist Christian one. It can be a little too self-righteous for my liking at times, but yeah, it's better.

Certainly, in the cold analysis of objectivity and evolution, you can say there is no "right" thing to do, but as I said, we have society and we can either embrace it or leave it. If someone is unable to use cultural mores to form an idea of what constitutes good and bad, I can't educate them.

It's a lot more complicated than that, though. Different groups within society disagree on what constitutes good and bad. It's not really a matter of educating anyone; almost everyone is aware of what is generally considered right and wrong by different groups. The issue is that people might just disagree with those judgments.

It's a very simplistic stance to say that we can either embrace society or leave it. In fact, I can name at least one military dictatorship whose slogan was exactly that: "Love us or leave us." If you take that mentality as prescriptive, you are advocating a society in which there is no room for dissent. If you mean it to be descriptive, you fail to account for thousands of individuals who are very much part of society, but who reject mainstream morality.

Another point seems to have passed you by completely. We have no idea what is and isn't advantageous from an evolutionary perspective, but it could well be that our unique ability to shape the world we live in is an evolutionary advantage.

No, it hasn't. My point was that even if we knew what was advantageous, there would be no obligations of any kind to do it. But I did say that it's a very hard task, if not impossible, to know what is advantageous and what is not.

And yes, of course, our ability to shape the world we live has actually been an evolutionary advantage up to this point. I don't think anyone would dispute that. It's possibly still an advantage. I just don't see how this is related to morality in any meaningful way, unless of course you decide it's important for your own personal moral code.

There seems to be enough link between morals and instinctive behaviour that we can claim hard-wiring for at least some of it.

Eh, once again that's complicated. Obviously all behavior, "moral" or otherwise, is a consequence of evolution. But there is enough variation between individuals to make the link between instinctive behavior and morality irrelevant. I can see how biology could create a basis for morality if, say, it were biologically impossible for a human being not to adhere to the golden rule. But this is not true. Some people just don't care about reciprocity.

 

[The Atheist]

Different groups within society disagree on what constitutes good and bad. It's not really a matter of educating anyone; almost everyone is aware of what is generally considered right and wrong by different groups. The issue is that people might just disagree with those judgments.

Which is why we allow the majority to dictate which of those morals will be enforced and which won't. So far, democracy seems to work it out ok, while theocracies are still struglling when a woman can be raped, then stoned to death for adultery.

If there's another, viable alternative, I'd love to see it. You just can't please everyone, thank god.

It's a very simplistic stance to say that we can either embrace society or leave it.

Quite often, the simplest explanations are correct.

In fact, I can name at least one military dictatorship whose slogan was exactly that: "Love us or leave us." If you take that mentality as prescriptive, you are advocating a society in which there is no room for dissent.

Not at all, as thousands of ferals would attest to. In democracies, it's quite possible to live an alternative lifestyle and not take any part in society.

If you mean it to be descriptive, you fail to account for thousands of individuals who are very much part of society, but who reject mainstream morality.

Such as what? Paedophiles? Anarchists?

Some people just don't care about reciprocity.

Which is why we impose minimum standards

 

[Rairun]

Lonewulf,

I happen to share the values you seem to hold. I'm for a society in which individuals are as free as possible without harming the others too much. I just admit that this kind of society actually makes certain people unhappy--it's just not a place where they can fulfill their goals properly. If you want a very extreme example, it'd be a terrible society for a homicidal maniac to live in. In a dictatorship, this person could at least aspire to occupy a function that allowed him to repress and kill people systematically. A less extreme example would be conservative religious people, who would not be happy to live in a place where gay marriages and abortions took place. In the end, I have to recognize that the society I dream of would only be perfect for the kind of people I like, generally speaking. My desire to shape the world is just as valid as the conservative Christian's, which means I'll fight to have things my way, and they will fight to have things their way, and the strongest (the most influential) will win. There is no "right" or "wrong" here. It's an open war.

Anyway, I said that the idea that "what is good for the community is good for the individual" was fascist because it sounded just like what some would say to justify taking individual rights away. But yeah, I admit I was mistaken in calling it fascist, because in one way or another all forms of government repress those whose desires are too dangerous for the status quo, including democracy. My true contention was that it's kind of dishonest to say that what is good for most people is good for the individual, because it's not. Individuals often find themselves at odds with the rest of the herd. I don't think those individuals are "wrong" and we are "right". I don't think that what is good for us is good for them. There is a conflict of interests going on here, and I think the whole morality business only tries to conceal that fact.

 

[Rairun]

Such as what? Paedophiles? Anarchists?

Yeah, those would be examples, albeit ones that I don't like. But there others that I do support:

- Gay couples
- Incestuous couples
- Polygamous families
- Women who have abortions
- People who use drugs
- Parents who have important contacts and ask for their sons to be exempted from compulsory military service

Those are all examples from my country. I could go on.

 

[Rairun]

Which is why we allow the majority to dictate which of those morals will be enforced and which won't. So far, democracy seems to work it out ok, while theocracies are still struglling when a woman can be raped, then stoned to death for adultery.

You say this as if I didn't agree. This has nothing to do with the way the whole argument first started. I have never said we can't have laws to punish and prevent certain kinds of behavior. All I said was that the concept of "doing the right thing" is sort of ill-devised. Originally, it had nothing to do with laws. As far as I know, if Obama didn't do things that helped his fellow men, he wouldn't be breaking the law. "Moral" was definitely not the same as "legal" in that context.

An amoral society is not lawless. I have never said this.

 

[politas]

True enough. I do prefer a humanistic view in favor of a fundamentalist Christian one. It can be a little too self-righteous for my liking at times, but yeah, it's better.

My reading of humanistic principles is that they reflect a desire to be self-righteous, rather than to act self-righteous.

It's a lot more complicated than that, though. Different groups within society disagree on what constitutes good and bad. It's not really a matter of educating anyone; almost everyone is aware of what is generally considered right and wrong by different groups. The issue is that people might just disagree with those judgments.

And we have a methodology for dealing with those disagreements. Democracy and the Rule of Law.

 

[Lonewulf]

Lonewulf,

I happen to share the values you seem to hold. I'm for a society in which individuals are as free as possible without harming the others too much. I just admit that this kind of society actually makes certain people unhappy--it's just not a place where they can fulfill their goals properly. If you want a very extreme example, it'd be a terrible society for a homicidal maniac to live in.

Homicidal maniacs tend to be in the minority anyways, and when they fulfill their ideals to the utmost, they harm both the society and other members of the population. Thus, no one has any real interest in giving them leeway.

In a dictatorship, this person could at least aspire to occupy a function that allowed him to repress and kill people systematically.

Which hurts both the population and thus, society.

A less extreme example would be conservative religious people, who would not be happy to live in a place where gay marriages and abortions took place.

Yes, this is a problem. But even if they lived in a democratic society where gay marriages and abortions took place, how much is their dislike outweighed by the positive benefits and contentment in the country? Yeah, other people are getting married and abortions are taking place, but yet, you have a bed, a roof, four walls, three square meals (maybe ), and many other benefits. Which is why I doubt we'll see a major emigration into another country just over that one issue -- and thus, society (and the individual person) is not unduly hurt. And if the population rose up in rebellion against their government over this one particular issue... well... that WOULD be a surprise. A tad unbelievable, as well.

In the end, I have to recognize that the society I dream of would only be perfect for the kind of people I like, generally speaking.

The thing is, your neighbors the fundamentalists might agree with you on more issues than they disagree with you. There's always a foundation in western civilization, that can be agreed upon.

My desire to shape the world is just as valid as the conservative Christian's, which means I'll fight to have things my way, and they will fight to have things their way, and the strongest (the most influential) will win. There is no "right" or "wrong" here. It's an open war.

Like I said, it's a war over a relatively minor issue, given the greater number of issues the both sides can agree on.

Anyway, I said that the idea that "what is good for the community is good for the individual" was fascist because it sounded just like what some would say to justify taking individual rights away.

A case of assumption and conclusion-jumping. You read far more into my statement than was ever implied.

The fact is, the more rights that are made available to the average person, within reason, the more it benefits society. Restricting people's rights to a large level tends to cause an unstable, discontent country, and thus causes problems -- it makes the society unstable, and the people less-than-content.

(Once again, China will have to sit on the side as a rather large exception to this rule...)

But yeah, I admit I was mistaken in calling it fascist, because in one way or another all forms of government repress those whose desires are too dangerous for the status quo, including democracy. My true contention was that it's kind of dishonest to say that what is good for most people is good for the individual, because it's not. Individuals often find themselves at odds with the rest of the herd. I don't think those individuals are "wrong" and we are "right". I don't think that what is good for us is good for them. There is a conflict of interests going on here, and I think the whole morality business only tries to conceal that fact.

You seem to define "what's good for..." as "Them getting exactly what they want all the time"...

As we seem to be operating off of two different definitions, I'm not sure how to continue.

 

[Rairun]

I guess the bottom line is that I think "right" and "wrong" are charged words. So is "immoral". They strike me as something a priest would say. To me, it makes little sense to tell people that what they're doing is wrong if they are already aware of the consequences of their acts. For example, if you tell a conservative Christian that they're harming gay people by taking away their rights, they'll tell you that's preferable because it will help them to lead a virtuous life. There's no common ground in this instance.

When there is no common ground, saying something is right or wrong sounds like an appeal to authority. I realize that you can redefine those words in secular terms by creating general rules of conduct that are agreed upon by all members of society, but the point is that not everyone agrees. So when you tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, it sounds like an attempt to bully them into accepting other people's values as correct. And by "accepting" I don't mean just dealing with the fact that as a society we adopt those values--I mean implanting those aliens values in their heads, making them feel guilty because they are different. Let's face it, most people are not aware that right and wrong are supposed to be purely instrumental terms that have no objective reality.

That's the extent of my contention. I'm not particularly fond of psychological control. I think the law is there to punish people for behaving in ways we don't accept as a society, and that's enough. Bullying people into believing they are inadequate and lesser human beings because of their values is a whole different game. In other words, I agree with you when it comes to lawmaking. But the terminology used leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

 

[The Atheist]

In other words, I agree with you when it comes to lawmaking. But the terminology used leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

There's such a thing as being too rational.

That's all you have to get past.

A little nonsense now and then, is cherished by the wisest men.

Willy Wonka​

 

[arthwollipot]

When there is no common ground, saying something is right or wrong sounds like an appeal to authority. I realize that you can redefine those words in secular terms by creating general rules of conduct that are agreed upon by all members of society, but the point is that not everyone agrees.

That's not a problem. I don't agree with every law on the books, but society averages out the individual opinions of specific people. It's a gestalt, a groupthink if you like. And through the process of democracy we elect the lawmakers that on average most people prefer.

I think the law is there to punish people for behaving in ways we don't accept as a society, and that's enough.

That's only partially true. The laws also encourage people to behave in a manner that is consistent with the rest of society. Granted, they do this via the threat of punishment in some cases, but it's also through education and socialisation.

Bullying people into believing they are inadequate and lesser human beings because of their values is a whole different game.

Excuse me? Where in this discussion has this been suggested, advocated, or for that matter even mentioned?

In other words, I agree with you when it comes to lawmaking. But the terminology used leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

Get used to it. You may prefer to use language differently from the majority, but you won't succeed.

 

[Rairun]

That's not a problem. I don't agree with every law on the books, but society averages out the individual opinions of specific people. It's a gestalt, a groupthink if you like. And through the process of democracy we elect the lawmakers that on average most people prefer.

I never said it was a problem when it comes to lawmaking. I was just saying that an appeal to authority, to an abstract idea of righteousness, is not something anyone intelligent would take seriously. So doing X is bad, wrong, immoral, you name it. So what? Give me a single reason why I should care that I'm immoral other than the possibility of being punished.

That's only partially true. The laws also encourage people to behave in a manner that is consistent with the rest of society. Granted, they do this via the threat of punishment in some cases, but it's also through education and socialisation.

That was included in what I said. My point was that legislation and our own personal preferences are enough for society to work. There is no need to appeal to concepts to which the majority of people grant metaphysical status, such as "right" and "wrong". Not only that, but my point was that some secular humanists seem to give those concepts metaphysical undertones, even if they deny it when asked about it directly.

This is the case when they say things like, "don't do this because it's wrong" or "I want him to do the right thing"--it makes absolutely no sense to say those things unless they redefine those words to mean "legal" and "illegal". Otherwise, they are just saying, "don't do this because I don't like it" and "I want him to do what I like." At the very most, they would be saying, "don't do this because the majority of people don't like it." Of course, wording things this way is a lot more humble, and it's unlikely that it will convince most people to change their behavior, since it doesn't take advantage of the metaphysical ignorance of others.

Excuse me? Where in this discussion has this been suggested, advocated, or for that matter even mentioned?

See my explanation above.

Get used to it. You may prefer to use language differently from the majority, but you won't succeed.

This isn't about me using language differently from the majority. It's about me choosing not to rely on metaphysically-laden words in order to con people into behaving in a certain way. I have no power to change anyone's use of language, but I still have the right to think it's lame.

 

[politas]

I never said it was a problem when it comes to lawmaking. I was just saying that an appeal to authority, to an abstract idea of righteousness, is not something anyone intelligent would take seriously. So doing X is bad, wrong, immoral, you name it. So what? Give me a single reason why I should care that I'm immoral other than the possibility of being punished.

There are perfectly rational reasons for much of 'morality' They are quite complex, though, and so "right" and "wrong" are handy terms to shortcut the discussion. If we define that actions are "right" when they promote or support a harmonious society where the majority are happy and/or content, and that actions are "wrong" when they undermine such a society, can you accept that "right" and "wrong" are convenient labels? This allows for real argument about whether particular laws or actions are "right" or "wrong" in a meaningful way that does not depend on an authority, and is also not restricted to personal likes and dislikes.

That was included in what I said. My point was that legislation and our own personal preferences are enough for society to work. There is no need to appeal to concepts to which the majority of people grant metaphysical status, such as "right" and "wrong". Not only that, but my point was that some secular humanists seem to give those concepts metaphysical undertones, even if they deny it when asked about it directly.

Well, the concept of what's "best for society" is not so easy to determine, and individual conceptions largely depend on the society a person lives in. There's a feedback loop there that makes for unpredictable situations, like China. This is what leads to the somewhat metaphysical undertones, since the complexity of feedback loops affecting human behaviour is difficult for our brains to really grasp intuitively. And when you think about it, it would have to be so, or they wouldn't affect us the same way.

This is the case when they say things like, "don't do this because it's wrong" or "I want him to do the right thing"--it makes absolutely no sense to say those things unless they redefine those words to mean "legal" and "illegal". Otherwise, they are just saying, "don't do this because I don't like it" and "I want him to do what I like." Of course, wording things this way is a lot more humble, and it's unlikely that it will convince others to change their behavior, since it doesn't take advantage of the metaphysical ignorance of most people.

Nonsense. "Right" and "wrong" are not the same as "legal" and "illegal". And particularly, under democratic theory, they can't be. Otherwise, there can never be debate about laws, something which democracy is explicitly designed to allow.

 

[Rairun]

I'm going to quote your post out of order.

Nonsense. "Right" and "wrong" are not the same as "legal" and "illegal". And particularly, under democratic theory, they can't be. Otherwise, there can never be debate about laws, something which democracy is explicitly designed to allow.

I never said it was. You should read the whole paragraph. I said that the concepts of right and wrong only have real existence if they mean either:

(1) Legal / Illegal.

or

(2) Something that I or (at the very best) the majority of people like / dislike.

I said it makes no sense to give (2) as a reason to stop unwanted behavior, because no one who didn't care about harming people would take it seriously. Like:

"I want to harm people, is there a reason why I shouldn't?"
"Yeah, it harms them."

And if the person just wants to do X but is not aware of its consequences, is it not better to say:

"I want to do X, is there a reason why I shouldn't?"
"Yeah, it harms people in such and such way."

Instead of:

"I want to do X, is there a reason why I shouldn't?"
"Yeah, it's wrong."

Well, the concept of what's "best for society" is not so easy to determine, and individual conceptions largely depend on the society a person lives in. There's a feedback loop there that makes for unpredictable situations, like China

Could you explain what this has to do with anything? All I said was that legislation and individual preferences are enough for society to work. I agree that what's best for society as a whole is not easy to determine, specially since individual preferences are so diverse, but that's beside the point. My point was that the concepts of right and wrong are metaphysically-laden, and that most people do not take them to mean just (1) or (2).

There are perfectly rational reasons for much of 'morality' They are quite complex, though, and so "right" and "wrong" are handy terms to shortcut the discussion. If we define that actions are "right" when they promote or support a harmonious society where the majority are happy and/or content, and that actions are "wrong" when they undermine such a society, can you accept that "right" and "wrong" are convenient labels? This allows for real argument about whether particular laws or actions are "right" or "wrong" in a meaningful way that does not depend on an authority, and is also not restricted to personal likes and dislikes.

A harmonious society where the majority is happy is something I generally support as a political agenda, but again, "right" and "wrong" have metaphysical implications. You can try to redefine those words in a secular way, sure, but they only remain so convincing and emotionally gripping to most people because of the lingering metaphysical implications. Case in point, saying that Obama should help fellow human beings means pretty much that he should support a harmonious society; if "right" has been redefined as "that which supports a harmonious society", then adding "because it's the right thing to do" makes it a circular argument. It's redundant. A non-explanation. But it sure does help to convince those people who still believe in a metaphysical morality.

 

[arthwollipot]

I never said it was a problem when it comes to lawmaking. I was just saying that an appeal to authority, to an abstract idea of righteousness, is not something anyone intelligent would take seriously. So doing X is bad, wrong, immoral, you name it. So what? Give me a single reason why I should care that I'm immoral other than the possibility of being punished.

How about when you do X, you are causing harm to others.

Do you really not care if you bring harm to others? Truly? Is the threat of punishment the only reason you do not murder, rape and steal? Be honest now.

 

[Puppycow]

I've seen lots of posters trying to claim Obama as some kind of "pretend theist" who's really an atheist in disguise.

Let these words refute that idea forever:



link

Are you saying that "an atheist in disguise" wouldn't say such a thing?
Are you saying that Obama wouldn't lie about his faith for political reasons?

Fail.

 

[Rairun]

How about when you do X, you are causing harm to others.

Do you really not care if you bring harm to others? Truly? Is the threat of punishment the only reason you do not murder, rape and steal? Be honest now.

I do care. No, the threat of punishment isn't the only reason why I don't murder, rape and steal. I thought I'd made that clear. In my early childhood, I developed some sort of aesthetic sense--I don't mean this in a frivolous way--that makes many things that are considered right beautiful to me. Appealing. I honestly don't know how much of an influence being told that certain things were right and others were wrong had on me. I'm guessing it was secondary, though. It probably had more to do with the way people acted around me than with what they said.

In any case, I'm not a saint either. I don't like harming people. Most of the time I'll go out of my way not to harm them. But I can't say I'm incapable of doing doing harm. I'm not incapable of not caring when I have stronger reasons to do otherwise. For example, the year I turned 18, I was lucky enough that the military was underfunded. No one was drafted. But had things been different, I would not have hesitated to go through my contacts and ask someone in an influential position to pick someone else. I fully realize it'd be unfair, but I would not be willing to waste a year of my life in the military. You could say it's wrong, that it's immoral. I don't care. I wouldn't be happy that I harmed another person, but I wouldn't feel guilty for a second. It'd have been deliberate.

 

[arthwollipot]

I do care. No, the threat of punishment isn't the only reason why I don't murder, rape and steal. I thought I'd made that clear. In my early childhood, I developed some sort of aesthetic sense--I don't mean this in a frivolous way--that makes many things that are considered right beautiful to me. Appealing. I honestly don't know how much of an influence being told that certain things were right and others were wrong had on me. I'm guessing it was secondary, though. It probably had more to do with the way people acted around me than with what they said.

In any case, I'm not a saint either. I don't like harming people. Most of the time I'll go out of my way not to harm them. But I can't say I'm incapable of doing doing harm. I'm not incapable of not caring when I have stronger reasons to do otherwise. For example, the year I turned 18, I was lucky enough that the military was underfunded. No one was drafted. But had things been different, I would not have hesitated to go through my contacts and ask someone in an influential position to pick someone else. I fully realize it'd be unfair, but I would not be willing to waste a year of my life in the military. You could say it's wrong, that it's immoral. I don't care. I wouldn't be happy that I harmed another person, but I wouldn't feel guilty for a second. It'd have been deliberate.

Okay, so why can't you assume that the rest of the people in society are more or less the same as you?

 

[Rairun]

Okay, so why can't you assume that the rest of the people in society are more or less the same as you?

I assume many are, and that's one of the reasons why I have these opinions. I think reciprocity and impartiality are great for policymaking. I would hate to live anywhere where that wasn't the case. But as an individual, I care more about myself than anyone else (with very few exceptions), and I wouldn't hesitate to act "immorally" if I felt strongly enough to do it. I would kill a completely innocent person if that meant saving the life of someone who's important to me, in a ****ed up "kill them or I kill her" scenario. I wouldn't feel guilty either. I'd feel bad I was put in such a terrible situation in the first place, but I wouldn't regret it. That it is "wrong" would be meaningless to me.